Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Atheistic Morality
#76

Atheistic Morality
(09-01-2020, 07:34 PM)Bcat Wrote:
(09-01-2020, 07:19 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(09-01-2020, 07:01 PM)Bcat Wrote: Someone mentioned on the old forum that agnostic atheist was the most defensible position. As an atheist, they hold no belief in the existence of any deities however, they note that such things cannot be studied and therefore, are unknowable (agnostic).

Exactly. While I'm comfortable entirely disregarding the possibility of any god(s), I cannot say I know, because what I know is different from what I believe.

If pressed (I don't like labels of any kind), I would classify myself as an agnostic atheist.  I don't believe in any of the deities put forth by any of the various cultures/religions of the world.  However, this type of being cannot be studied and so, to argue its existence/nonexistence is futile as both parties will be talking in circles.  I much rather operate in hard scientific facts, things that can be studied and allow that to display the true nature of the world/universe/reality in which we live.

Sure. Knowledge trumps belief every day and twice on Sundays. And science, which is what generates our knowledge, can't address many beliefs, so I go with science too. Beliefs don't matter to me, given not only their lack of foundation, but lack of results.

For instance, I know the Christian conception cannot be right, because an omnimax god of perfect morality wouldn't permit the evils we see. On that score I'm a hard 7.0 on the Dawkins scale. On most gods, I am. But others? I think it depends on definitions, and in a lot of pagan folk especially, the definition of "god" gets pretty vague.

They get all due skepticism from me, and generally only add to the notches on my belt as being full of shit, too. But I look at 'em first.
Freedom isn't free.
The following 3 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Bcat, LastPoet, Inkubus
Reply
#77

Atheistic Morality
(09-01-2020, 10:48 PM)mordant Wrote:
(09-01-2020, 04:34 PM)Ausländer Wrote: It also in my opinion we must distinguish among different religions. For a catholic it is easy since when they do a "sin" (that can be a crime) then they just confess and say a couple of prayers and everything is OK again, for other religions it may not be so easy.

Dealing with guilt is no less simple for many Protestants. Indeed ... "there's no guilt like Catholic guilt" so I'd suggest that evangelicals for example are far better than Catholics at walking away from / ignoring guilt -- real or imagined.

When I was an evangelical and I did something regarded as sinful I reflexively confessed my sin to god and felt instant and unconditional absolution. It didn't require an intermediary (visiting a confession booth), it just required a desire to repent. The word "repent" simply means "to change one's mind" (about whether a thing is wrong in this case). I was taught to literally wipe guilt away by changing my mind about whether something was okay or not, and promising (generally just to god) not to do it in the future (in fairness to myself, such promises could be taken to the bank, but I know for a fact that's not universally true with everyone).

Without even the minimal accountability of the confession booth, and with a completely frictionless and convenient process like that, repentance became almost a trivial activity, and by association, guilt became completely avoidable / cancellable / no big deal. For a long time I found it offensive if I apologized to someone and they didn't feel I demonstrated sufficient contrition -- until I came to understand that it's not personal, it's just that most people are conditioned to expect to see some actual groveling. Man, I had it easy for a long time there!

ETA: I should hasten to point out this isn't universally true of all fundamentalists. The more authoritarian ones, those in the Holiness tradition (e.g. Pentecostals) and so forth, or just people with certain emotional vulnerabilities can have some really serious and crippling problems with chronic, unresolved guilt. But the particular combination of the sect I was part of and my personality and upbringing rendered me mostly impervious to guilt.

I was never a fundy, but I was raised a Southern Baptist, and this reflects my experiences accurately. I was taught that confessing the sins of your day at nightly prayer, and asking forgiveness, and of course "letting Jesus into your heart" (whatever that means!) were the only three requirements for salvation. It was basically Jesus on call any time you screwed up.

I know I added to his overtime wages, lol, before I realized the sham for what it was, at around twelve years old. Sinnin' and grinnin'.
Freedom isn't free.
The following 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • mordant
Reply
#78

Atheistic Morality
(09-02-2020, 05:53 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(09-01-2020, 07:34 PM)Bcat Wrote:
(09-01-2020, 07:19 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Exactly. While I'm comfortable entirely disregarding the possibility of any god(s), I cannot say I know, because what I know is different from what I believe.

If pressed (I don't like labels of any kind), I would classify myself as an agnostic atheist.  I don't believe in any of the deities put forth by any of the various cultures/religions of the world.  However, this type of being cannot be studied and so, to argue its existence/nonexistence is futile as both parties will be talking in circles.  I much rather operate in hard scientific facts, things that can be studied and allow that to display the true nature of the world/universe/reality in which we live.

Sure. Knowledge trumps belief every day ad twice on Sundays. And science, which is what generates our knowledge, can't address many beliefs, so I go with science too. Beliefs don't matter to me, given not only their lack of foundation, but lack of results.

For instance, I know the Christian conception cannot be right, because an omnimax god of perfect morality wouldn't permit the evils we see. On that score I'm a hard 7.0 on the Dawkins scale. On most gods, I am. But  others? I think it depends on definitions, and in a lot of pagan folk especially, the definition of "god" gets pretty vague.

They get all due skepticism from me, and generally only add to the notches on my belt as being full of shit, too. But I look at 'em first.

What definitions does it depend on?
Reply
#79

Atheistic Morality
(09-02-2020, 12:46 AM)Dom Wrote: I just don't "believe" things. I either know them, or I assume them to be. Believing seems to imply being sure without knowing.

What's the difference between a belief and something one considers axiomatic, in your view?

I think axioms are beliefs, generally. I believe my senses are reporting an objective reality on a fairly reliable though imperfect basis. But I can't really prove that, can I?
Freedom isn't free.
The following 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Mark
Reply
#80

Atheistic Morality
(09-02-2020, 06:03 AM)Bcat Wrote:
(09-02-2020, 05:53 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(09-01-2020, 07:34 PM)Bcat Wrote: If pressed (I don't like labels of any kind), I would classify myself as an agnostic atheist.  I don't believe in any of the deities put forth by any of the various cultures/religions of the world.  However, this type of being cannot be studied and so, to argue its existence/nonexistence is futile as both parties will be talking in circles.  I much rather operate in hard scientific facts, things that can be studied and allow that to display the true nature of the world/universe/reality in which we live.

Sure. Knowledge trumps belief every day ad twice on Sundays. And science, which is what generates our knowledge, can't address many beliefs, so I go with science too. Beliefs don't matter to me, given not only their lack of foundation, but lack of results.

For instance, I know the Christian conception cannot be right, because an omnimax god of perfect morality wouldn't permit the evils we see. On that score I'm a hard 7.0 on the Dawkins scale. On most gods, I am. But  others? I think it depends on definitions, and in a lot of pagan folk especially, the definition of "god" gets pretty vague.

They get all due skepticism from me, and generally only add to the notches on my belt as being full of shit, too. But I look at 'em first.

What definitions does it depend on?

I don't know. There are so many gods I've never heard of that I couldn't say which precise implausibility might make me see that particular piece of bullshit.

Agnostic atheist that I am, though, I expect to find some bullshit somewhere in any definition.
Freedom isn't free.
The following 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Bcat
Reply
#81

Atheistic Morality
(09-02-2020, 05:53 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Sure. Knowledge trumps belief every day and twice on Sundays. And science, which is what generates our knowledge, can't address many beliefs, so I go with science too. Beliefs don't matter to me, given not only their lack of foundation, but lack of results.

For instance, I know the Christian conception cannot be right, because an omnimax god of perfect morality wouldn't permit the evils we see. On that score I'm a hard 7.0 on the Dawkins scale. On most gods, I am. But  others? I think it depends on definitions, and in a lot of pagan folk especially, the definition of "god" gets pretty vague.

They get all due skepticism from me, and generally only add to the notches on my belt as being full of shit, too. But I look at 'em first.

A few years ago on AF, I said that polytheism solves the problem of evil perfectly. A bunch of "gods" all acting on their interests explains "evil". In a entertaining the idea way.

The omnimax monotheistic god however, is self contradictory IMHO.
The following 2 users Like LastPoet's post:
  • Mark, Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#82

Atheistic Morality
(09-02-2020, 12:13 PM)LastPoet Wrote: A few years ago on AF, I said that polytheism solves the problem of evil perfectly. A bunch of "gods" all acting on their interests explains "evil". In a entertaining the idea way.

The omnimax monotheistic god however, is self contradictory IMHO.

Definitely. What I liked of the greek-roman panthen is that they hadd all the passions, good and bad aspects of human. They were "human like god" in their evil or good doing
The following 1 user Likes Ausländer's post:
  • Mark
Reply
#83

Atheistic Morality
(09-02-2020, 06:05 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(09-02-2020, 12:46 AM)Dom Wrote: I just don't "believe" things. I either know them, or I assume them to be. Believing seems to imply being sure without knowing.

What's the difference between a belief and something one considers axiomatic, in your view?

I think axioms are beliefs, generally. I believe my senses are reporting an objective reality on a fairly reliable though imperfect basis. But I can't really prove that, can I?

I think axioms are assumptions, not beliefs. 

I assume the sun is going to rise every day, it always has, and it is a reasonable guess that it will do so again. 

But, I don't know for sure, it might not, or I might be dead and not be aware of it rising. But, for all purposes, I am assuming it will, and I am planning the day accordingly. I also assume I will be alive and all kinds of other things I plan my day around.

We could not live without reasonable assumptions. 

But, to me, belief implies certainty. An assumption leaves room for other possibilities. I may ignore these in my plans, but that doesn't mean that I don't think they exist.
[Image: color%5D%5Bcolor=#333333%5D%5Bsize=small%5D%5Bfont=T...ans-Serif%5D]
The following 1 user Likes Dom's post:
  • Chas
Reply
#84

Atheistic Morality
A pantheon is one solution. A construct of consciousness is another. Smug dismissals of the lowest hanging fundy fruit are not impressive and neither is the cavalier assumption that any and all interpretations amount to the same thing.

It is more fruitful to ask what true thing is any such religious tradition getting at about human affairs than it is to ask if it is factually true. Insisting that either they are true or false in some literal, empirical way diminishes what we are as human beings because we aren't just rational beings. Jung's archetypes and the Roman pantheon of gods and the Christian parables engage the imagination and the intuitive mind. It doesn't matter that they aren't historically factual.
"Talk nonsense, but talk your own nonsense, and I'll kiss you for it. To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else's. 
F. D.
Reply
#85

Atheistic Morality
(09-02-2020, 01:10 PM)Dom Wrote: But, to me, belief implies certainty. An assumption leaves room for other possibilities. I may ignore these in my plans, but that doesn't mean that I don't think they exist.

I appreciate you pointing this out as it had not occurred to me, TBH, that some would see belief as certitude. To me it's always been a default assumption (hopefully, empirically or experientially grounded in some way) around something that's either uncertain or simply unprovable.

Would it to be fair to say that you see "belief" as a synonym for "religious faith"? Or at least something that edges into that unsavory territory?
Reply
#86

Atheistic Morality
(09-02-2020, 12:28 PM)Ausländer Wrote:
(09-02-2020, 12:13 PM)LastPoet Wrote: A few years ago on AF, I said that polytheism solves the problem of evil perfectly. A bunch of "gods" all acting on their interests explains "evil". In a entertaining the idea way.

The omnimax monotheistic god however, is self contradictory IMHO.

Definitely. What I liked of the greek-roman panthen is that they hadd all the passions, good and bad aspects of human. They were "human like god" in their evil or good doing

As an evangelical, pantheons held no appeal for me for precisely the reasons you cite. The whole idea of the evangelical god concept is that god is everything we wish we could be ... sinless, perfectly virtuous, never in doubt or despair. We wished to deny our humanity as base and vile and shameful. It was, when you really unpacked it, asceticism without the overt hair shirts and self-flagellation. Everything that's wrong with the world was, for us, rooted in its very fallen physicality. Even while pushing forgiveness for sins, we schizophrenically taught that even the Redeemed had a "sin nature" that they had to wrestle with, leading to Paul's famous lament, "Oh wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?"

For years after I deconverted, I saw the liberal Christian tradition as laughably irrelevant -- what was the point of it? What did it STAND for? It seemed to me hopelessly wishy-washy and if THAT is what I had walked away from, it would have been far easier, as what would I have been giving up exactly? What certitude, what comfort? Not much, from my perspective, other than a shred of belief in god's very existence, which to me by the time I deconverted, was self-disproving anyway.

It was only much later that I came to appreciate that religion could address belonging and refuge and provoking one another to compassionate and good works without being so rigid and judgmental about human imperfections -- in oneself, or in others. Or being so rigid about dogma. That it took me probably 15 years to sort that out speaks to the power of the hold fundamentalism held on me. And it explains a lot of the virulent anti-religious bent of much of the discourse in places like this; it is because fundamentalism has such an outsize harmful influence on society, and it represents the "logical" result of Christianity's underlying beliefs taken seriously, literally and systematically.
Reply
#87

Atheistic Morality
(09-02-2020, 01:10 PM)Dom Wrote:
(09-02-2020, 06:05 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(09-02-2020, 12:46 AM)Dom Wrote: I just don't "believe" things. I either know them, or I assume them to be. Believing seems to imply being sure without knowing.

What's the difference between a belief and something one considers axiomatic, in your view?

I think axioms are beliefs, generally. I believe my senses are reporting an objective reality on a fairly reliable though imperfect basis. But I can't really prove that, can I?

I think axioms are assumptions, not beliefs. 

I assume the sun is going to rise every day, it always has, and it is a reasonable guess that it will do so again. 

But, I don't know for sure, it might not, or I might be dead and not be aware of it rising. But, for all purposes, I am assuming it will, and I am planning the day accordingly. I also assume I will be alive and all kinds of other things I plan my day around.

We could not live without reasonable assumptions. 

But, to me, belief implies certainty. An assumption leaves room for other possibilities. I may ignore these in my plans, but that doesn't mean that I don't think they exist.

Okay.
Freedom isn't free.
Reply
#88

Atheistic Morality
(09-01-2020, 07:01 PM)Bcat Wrote: Someone mentioned on the old forum that agnostic atheist was the most defensible position. As an atheist, they hold no belief in the existence of any deities however, they note that such things cannot be studied and therefore, are unknowable (agnostic).
I think the key with this position (which happens to also be mine) is that religious faith is not just unsubstantiatED; it's unsubstantiatABLE. You simply cannot (dis)prove that which cannot be examined in any way, shape or form.

God is a construct that conveniently exists in a claimed alternative universe (the realm of spirit) that is not accessible to us here in the physical world -- except, allegedly and conveniently, through the mechanism of religious faith, to which, of course, reason and empirical judgment are anathema.


The whole concept of agnosticism as conceived by Huxley is that religious truth claims not only AREN'T proven; they CAN'T be proven. Agnosticism posits that no evidence will EVER be forthcoming because the truth proposition is non-falsifiable to begin with.


Some agnostics cling to what I see as a modern misunderstanding of agnosticism that puts them in the middle, neither believing or disbelieving, awaiting evidence that they don't understand will never come, thus undermining the perceived virtue and wisdom of withheld belief. Belief is to be withheld because it's inherently impossible to ever grant to a non-falsifiable proposition. Belief in the Christian god (or most gods, really) is simply not possible.
The following 3 users Like mordant's post:
  • Bcat, brunumb, Inkubus
Reply
#89

Atheistic Morality
(09-02-2020, 01:46 PM)mordant Wrote:
(09-02-2020, 01:10 PM)Dom Wrote: But, to me, belief implies certainty. An assumption leaves room for other possibilities. I may ignore these in my plans, but that doesn't mean that I don't think they exist.

I appreciate you pointing this out as it had not occurred to me, TBH, that some would see belief as certitude. To me it's always been a default assumption (hopefully, empirically or experientially grounded in some way) around something that's either uncertain or simply unprovable.

Would it to be fair to say that you see "belief" as a synonym for "religious faith"? Or at least something that edges into that unsavory territory?

I see belief as taking an assumption and seeing it as truth. 

It doesn't just apply to religions, also conspiracy theories, or gambling (believing that the machine will hit at certain intervals) or a con. Those are unreasonable assumptions. 

You can also have reasonable assumptions, like that the other car will stay in it's lane, that it will rain soon because the clouds look like it, or that everything will still be there when you step outside your front door. Those are expectations, not beliefs IMO.
[Image: color%5D%5Bcolor=#333333%5D%5Bsize=small%5D%5Bfont=T...ans-Serif%5D]
The following 2 users Like Dom's post:
  • mordant, Chas
Reply
#90

Atheistic Morality
(09-02-2020, 03:47 PM)Dom Wrote:
(09-02-2020, 01:46 PM)mordant Wrote:
(09-02-2020, 01:10 PM)Dom Wrote: But, to me, belief implies certainty. An assumption leaves room for other possibilities. I may ignore these in my plans, but that doesn't mean that I don't think they exist.

I appreciate you pointing this out as it had not occurred to me, TBH, that some would see belief as certitude. To me it's always been a default assumption (hopefully, empirically or experientially grounded in some way) around something that's either uncertain or simply unprovable.

Would it to be fair to say that you see "belief" as a synonym for "religious faith"? Or at least something that edges into that unsavory territory?

I see belief as taking an assumption and seeing it as truth. 

It doesn't just apply to religions, also conspiracy theories, or gambling (believing that the machine will hit at certain intervals) or a con. Those are unreasonable assumptions. 

You can also have reasonable assumptions, like that the other car will stay in it's lane, that it will rain soon because the clouds look like it, or that everything will still be there when you step outside your front door. Those are expectations, not beliefs IMO.

Faith is the very example of taking an unfounded thought and treating it as fact. It is the opposite of analytical thinking.

Taking something "on faith" is the refusal to use the hallmark of our human species, thought. There was no deity that caused our ancient ancestors to become bipedal. We had natural survival reasons to do that. There was no deity that taught us that sharp rocks were useful and (later) that we could create sharp rocks on our own.

Same with fire. I have no idea why some ancient hominid suddenly decided it could "keep" fire by pulling a burning branch out of ta natural flame and putting more onto it, but I certainly doubt that some "voice in the sky" said to do that.

And why ancient hominids put meat on that fire is unknown as well. But the smarter hominids sometimes just "tried things".

And it didn't stop with them. We "try things" today. It's what we do. And not because some deity said so.
Theists disbelieve in all deities but one.  I just disbelieve in one less.
The following 2 users Like Cavebear's post:
  • Bcat, Dom
Reply
#91

Atheistic Morality
(09-03-2020, 05:44 AM)Cavebear Wrote: ... And why ancient hominids put meat on that fire is unknown ...

What may have happened there is trying out the meat of animals burned in wildfires and finding it preferable.  That may even have predated controlled fire - or led to trying to find out if fire could be controlled - although staying warm might have driven controlling fire as well.

It's unsettling to consider that making fire hot enough to forge metal was driven by a desire to make longer blades to kill people with.  So much of technological innovation was in service of finding ways to kill people.  At Castle Air Museum awhile back I contemplated the enormity and incalculable complexity of the B-52 parked there whose sole purpose was to make a mess and kill people while doing it.  It's a stupendous paradox - that we're so adroit at figuring out how the universe works yet so indelibly stupid at understanding ourselves.
The following 3 users Like airportkid's post:
  • Cavebear, Bcat, Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#92

Atheistic Morality
It is really interesting that cooking food is what made us "humans".
Singing/music: also animals do
Art: als animals do
Taking care of sick/mourning dead: also animals do

What really made us human is cooking. Cooked food is more nutricious so it allowed us to spend less time on eating and thus havingmore time for tinkering around and develop tools, craftmanship etc etc

This book analyze it in great depth and it is worth to read, I enjoyed it a lot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catching_F...e_Us_Human
The following 4 users Like Ausländer's post:
  • Cavebear, Little Lunch, Bcat, Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#93

Atheistic Morality
To "believe" in something, which in itself means that you don't know something is true or not ["an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof"] to me is done solely to make a person feel better.

Children "believe" in Santa/tooth fairy, because it makes them "feel" better. Those that seriously "believe" in religion/their chosen deity, do so to make themselves feel better [Supposed idea of an afterlife/community/rules to follow etc] - and you can see why people want it to be true - "behave yourself and live forever in paradise" ? Sounds great to me.  The problem is we have no actual evidence that any of this shit exists so Atheists just say "we dont know". Even then when you start to pick apart various religions down to their origins it would seem more and more likely that it's all bullshit - sure we can't still then say "your chosen god(s) isn't real" because there is no way to test/verify that, but when the basis of your belief comes down to a lot of stories from your chosen book, most of which are fairly easily verifiable/debunkable or already debunked as false, it would suggest that we lean more towards the "...maybe it's all bullshit" line of things.

I for one can only ever really say "we don't know" when I don't know something. I don't "believe" in anything, i either know it as fact or accept that science has already got the answer and should I choose to do so, I can look it up/learn more/test it myself etc etc.
#BeExcellentToEachOther
The following 1 user Likes OakTree500's post:
  • Cavebear
Reply
#94

Atheistic Morality
(09-03-2020, 09:12 AM)airportkid Wrote:
(09-03-2020, 05:44 AM)Cavebear Wrote: ... And why ancient hominids put meat on that fire is unknown ...

What may have happened there is trying out the meat of animals burned in wildfires and finding it preferable.  That may even have predated controlled fire - or led to trying to find out if fire could be controlled - although staying warm might have driven controlling fire as well.

It's unsettling to consider that making fire hot enough to forge metal was driven by a desire to make longer blades to kill people with.  So much of technological innovation was in service of finding ways to kill people.  At Castle Air Museum awhile back I contemplated the enormity and incalculable complexity of the B-52 parked there whose sole purpose was to make a mess and kill people while doing it.  It's a stupendous paradox - that we're so adroit at figuring out how the universe works yet so indelibly stupid at understanding ourselves.

I have sometimes thought that after a wildfire, hominids may have been so hungry to have eaten "even" burned meat. And found they liked it. In any case, it seems that cooked meat is actually more digestible. So perhaps hominids more inclined to try it, benefited in the usual evolutionary sense of "what you tolerate that helps" (even by accident) gets passed along.

As to metal-working... I suspect some accidental observation of heated metal becoming "different" led somone to try it deliberately. And then others tried to "one-up" the original discoverer.
Theists disbelieve in all deities but one.  I just disbelieve in one less.
Reply
#95

Atheistic Morality
(09-03-2020, 10:18 AM)Ausländer Wrote: It is really interesting that cooking food is what made us "humans".
Singing/music: also animals do
Art: als animals do
Taking care of sick/mourning dead: also animals do

What really made us human is cooking. Cooked food is more nutricious so it allowed us to spend less time on eating and thus havingmore time for tinkering around and develop tools, craftmanship etc etc

This book analyze it in great depth and it is worth to read, I enjoyed it a lot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catching_F...e_Us_Human

Eating cooked meat also required less chewing, so having a smaller jaw was not a negative variation. Smaller jaws meant smaller teeth, and smaller teeth meant less fighting damage among group members. When the canine teeth become smaller within a group, there is less damage in alpha male fights. More losers survive and find other ways of gaining influence.
Theists disbelieve in all deities but one.  I just disbelieve in one less.
Reply
#96

Atheistic Morality
(09-03-2020, 10:27 AM)OakTree500 Wrote: To "believe" in something, which in itself means that you don't know something is true or not ["an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof"] to me is done solely to make a person feel better.

Children "believe" in Santa/tooth fairy, because it makes them "feel" better. Those that seriously "believe" in religion/their chosen deity, do so to make themselves feel better [Supposed idea of an afterlife/community/rules to follow etc] - and you can see why people want it to be true - "behave yourself and live forever in paradise" ? Sounds great to me.  The problem is we have no actual evidence that any of this shit exists so Atheists just say "we dont know". Even then when you start to pick apart various religions down to their origins it would seem more and more likely that it's all bullshit - sure we can't still then say "your chosen god(s) isn't real" because there is no way to test/verify that, but when the basis of your belief comes down to a lot of stories from your chosen book, most of which are fairly easily verifiable/debunkable or already debunked as false, it would suggest that we lean more towards the "...maybe it's all bullshit" line of things.

I for one can only ever really say "we don't know" when I don't know something. I don't "believe" in anything, i either know it as fact or accept that science has already got the answer and should I choose to do so, I can look it up/learn more/test it myself etc etc.

I agree to the extent that "we can't actually know" if there is a deity. In that limited sense that we don't "know", we are all agnostics. In the true sense of "agnostic (that a deity is existing but truly "unknowable and un-understandable"), I consider it useless to consider the question. .

I am atheist because of both lack of evidence and the idea that a deity wouldn't be anything like what theists think one is. If some theism arose that made sense of what a deity was and that it made sense, well... But until evidence is provided, I ignore the concept.

The universe doesn't seem to require a deity in order to exist.
Theists disbelieve in all deities but one.  I just disbelieve in one less.
The following 1 user Likes Cavebear's post:
  • OakTree500
Reply
#97

Atheistic Morality
(09-03-2020, 10:58 AM)Cavebear Wrote: I agree to the extent that "we can't actually know" if there is a deity.  In that limited sense that we don't "know", we are all agnostics.  In the true sense of "agnostic (that a deity is existing but truly "unknowable and un-understandable"), I consider it useless to consider the question.  .

I am atheist because of both lack of evidence and the idea that a deity wouldn't be anything like what theists think one is.  If some theism arose that made sense of what a deity was and that it made sense, well...  But until evidence is provided, I ignore the concept.

The universe doesn't seem to require a deity in order to exist.

Yeah, that's pretty much the same as myself - i cant say for sure on sometihng like that, but my understanding of the science behind the universe/how it started and how we've come to that conclusion indicates that some sort of creator isn't needed at all. 

On top of that when you start to think about "is there a god/gods? Are they all powerful/all knowing? Does that mean they know everything that happens and willfully chose not to do anything? Or then only help those that pray to it? [leaving children/people in around the world to die daily etc etc]" - it's this end of things that pushes me more towards that something like doesnt exist, and if it did it's an asshole that doesn't require my thanks/praise. Can create the universe but can't pop into existence for a second to prove itself to be real? Sounds dumbass to me.
#BeExcellentToEachOther
The following 1 user Likes OakTree500's post:
  • Cavebear
Reply
#98

Atheistic Morality
(09-03-2020, 11:04 AM)OakTree500 Wrote:
(09-03-2020, 10:58 AM)Cavebear Wrote: I agree to the extent that "we can't actually know" if there is a deity.  In that limited sense that we don't "know", we are all agnostics.  In the true sense of "agnostic (that a deity is existing but truly "unknowable and un-understandable"), I consider it useless to consider the question.  .

I am atheist because of both lack of evidence and the idea that a deity wouldn't be anything like what theists think one is.  If some theism arose that made sense of what a deity was and that it made sense, well...  But until evidence is provided, I ignore the concept.

The universe doesn't seem to require a deity in order to exist.

Yeah, that's pretty much the same as myself - i cant say for sure on sometihng like that, but my understanding of the science behind the universe/how it started and how we've come to that conclusion indicates that some sort of creator isn't needed at all. 

On top of that when you start to think about "is there a god/gods? Are they all powerful/all knowing? Does that mean they know everything that happens and willfully chose not to do anything? Or then only help those that pray to it? [leaving children/people in around the world to die daily etc etc]" - it's this end of things that pushes me more towards that something like doesnt exist, and if it did it's an asshole that doesn't require my thanks/praise. Can create the universe but can't pop into existence for a second to prove itself to be real? Sounds dumbass to me.

It seems to me that any actual deity would not be anything like what any theism has ever described. I am kinder to worms on the driveway after a rain (yes I actually pick them up and toss them onto good soil) than any deity ever described in a book.

I understand that we humans used to ascribe causative agents to events like thunder and lightning that we didn't understand at the time. But that before we developed the scientific method of analyzing observations. Today we know what causes most natural events. We don't need superstition to explain them.

What worries me is that some people still do.
Theists disbelieve in all deities but one.  I just disbelieve in one less.
The following 1 user Likes Cavebear's post:
  • OakTree500
Reply
#99

Atheistic Morality
Most people.
The following 1 user Likes Little Lunch's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply

Atheistic Morality
To go back to the topic: we do need a "moral compass" and this is important that is shared by the largest chunk of the population.
I haf joking say that the only moral compass I have is "do not behave like a stupid"
If we define a stupid person as somebody that create a loss to himself while causing a loss to the others
It is summarized in the laws about human stupidity of C. Cipolla that you can have summarized in this wii article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_M._Cipolla
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)