Originally posted by psmith81992
If you're a secular humanist, you don't subscribe to the idea of an all powerful all knowing God, since nature and reason are your "god", so you can bind him to your rules.
That's another one of your pieces of emotional nonsense. The assumption that humans see either nature or reason as god is false. The assumption that humanists try to 'bind' any concept to their rules is false.
Humanists just want to find out what is what.
Originally posted by psmith81992
Yea I think that I was kinda getting to that. If you're a secular humanist, you don't subscribe to the idea of an all powerful all knowing God, since nature and reason are your "god", so you can bind him to your rules. If you're religious, it's the other way around. It seems like Ush is trying to do both but it doesn't appear valid.
No, I think what Ush is doing is also valid. He's saying that like there are physical laws of nature, there is a moral code of nature that we can derive by reason. It's not like my view that we make our morals ourselves, he believes there are morals and we discover them. It's a third option.
To be fair I was raising that as possible rather than saying that is how it is- that is why I said that calling it moral relatavism may not even be right, but as I said that would be a whole thread argument on its own. It's psmiths assumption in the area that it has to be relatvism and there is no possibly of dissent that I was flagging as untrue.
Incidentally, even if it is not relative, it does not necessarily mean that the rules are part of 'nature' though that is a possibility. Reasoning may be objectively valid in its own right, even if not connected to nature. That's where existentialism got into. But it's all very complex/deep philosophy. There is also the view that being relative is not in of itself a valid criticism, as the fundamental systems that produce such moral system in turn could be reasoned as being better than others.
But relative or objective, it doesn't matter- the relevance of the morals holds for both gods and men.
Fair enough, you are right about the usage of moral relativism anyways, the way we mostly use it is after all just a subset of moral relativism, usually something somewhat related to some form of nihilism.
Either way, I think what we are talking about are two axis, one about moral absolutism/relativism (simplifying the term again) the other about secular/spiritual.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Fair enough, you are right about the usage of moral relativism anyways, the way we mostly use it is after all just a subset of moral relativism, usually something somewhat related to some form of nihilism.Either way, I think what we are talking about are two axis, one about moral absolutism/relativism (simplifying the term again) the other about secular/spiritual.
In my experience, many Americans confuse atheism with nihilism.
There's a tremendous irony in you saying you are not arguing with emotional and then immediately saying 'moral relativism has killed 100 million people'- a clearly emotional appeal, and one lacking any sort of context or reasoned connection, as if 'moral relatavism' is one big belief system you can apply liberally to any group you like.
Honestly, you are not giving the impression that you are actually interested in a rational or reasoned debate- when you make that sort of statement, you are straying into ranting.
My point about social advances is that reasoned morals- and not whatever label you try to put on it in an emotional attempt to dismiss it, like 'human morals' or 'moral relativism' (which I don't even think you understand)- are what modern civilisation is based on and this makes your dismissal of them rather suspect. I contend that reasoned morals with philosophical basis are a great achievement of human civilisation and stand for all sentience- including gods.
There's no double standard because I am explaining in each case what the issue is, rather than showing simple frustration like you do.
That is poor thinking at all levels- firstly because it depends on your biased used of the term 'human', and secondly because, as I explained in detail, the importance is not 'human' but 'rational'; something humans are capable of.
An all-powerful being has access to the same tools of reason as we have- and hence would know perfectly well when it is breaking such laws.
Nor is there any application of rationality thaty humans would not be able oto understand. Seeing it as 'Oh, it;s too complex for us to get it' is a. again, intellectually lazy as you are putting the burden on someone else and b. it shows a fundamental mis-apprehension about how complex subjects work.
We don't need to evolve into super-beings to understand rational concepts. Our brains are capable already- we just need to reason it out. The reason we already understand would be understood by a caveman if we could communicate with him. All the caveman is lacking is the historical analysis and culture of reason from which to understand the principles. He is NOT lacking the actual capacity.
So, if your super-being IS actually acting morally, we would be able to understand why. And, as I say, some moral principles are so basic that there is no chance of later reasoning making them untrue.
Again, calling my argument a copout- which seems to be because it annoys you- is poor.
It comes down to you thinking super-beings act in moral ways we cannot understand. If we cannot understand, then there is no point trying, That is your intellectual void.
We can reason about the actions of any being, regardless of understanding. 'How is the finite meant to judge the infinite' is a good example of the sort of semantically empty phrase you use in place of argument. It's nice and poetic but it is rationally meaningless, making weird assumptions about the definitions of both words.
Actions can be understood. If an advanced race murders and genocides, it is wrong and evil.
In any case, I also reject your idea that a God would perform seemingly immoral actions but actually have some fantastically complex moral web that wr cannot possibly comprehend that actually makes it morally different. I see no reason to think that; if such a being acts immorally it is likely for simple self-advancement or gratification, just as with any sentient being.
That's another one of your pieces of emotional nonsense. The assumption that humans see either nature or reason as god is false. The assumption that humanists try to 'bind' any concept to their rules is false.Humanists just want to find out what is what.
Originally posted by UshgarakTBF though, it seems like it's usually the ones who are labeling others Atheist or looking down on Atheist (ie using "Atheist" as a derogative term) that attribute the tenets of Nihilism to Atheism.
In my experience, many Americans confuse atheism with nihilism.
At least all the Atheist I know are not Nihilist.
Originally posted by Robtard
TBF though, it seems like it's usually the ones who are labeling others Atheist or looking down on Atheist (ie using "Atheist" as a derogative term) that attribute the tenets of Nihilism to Atheism.At least all the Atheist I know are not Nihilist.
I haven't met anyone who confuses atheism with nihilism. That would be an unfair to atheists.
I have on more than one occasion clashed with people who think Atheist believe in nothing, don't care about anything (other than destroying other's belief in god) and that life is meaningless. They use "Atheist" as a form of insult.
edit: Would saying all Nihilist are Atheist, not all Atheist are Nihilist be correct?
Originally posted by Digi
This is easy enough to agree with, but it glosses over the huge, culturally-dividing, war-starting issues that various religions DON'T agree on. This is basically a "COEXIST" bumper sticker in paragraph form. A nice sentiment, but too simplistic to have much value.
Well they don't agree because humans like to find excuses for hating other humans not because it's an inherent trait of religion.
Originally posted by Digi
Two responses. One, I'm a determinist, so the idea of consequences is a bit repugnant to me. Prisons and punishments (should) exist for the safety of non-criminals and to rehabilitate criminals, not for retribution. I would expect no less from an omniscient, omnipotent god in charge of an eternal afterlife. The very concept of hell as an eternal punishment with no possible recourse is an archaic, barbaric holdover from ancient myths and ideas.
Agreed not sure about the determinist thing, I dunno maybe sometimes retribution isn't a bad thing.
Originally posted by Digi
Second, I actually kinda agree here, but you're conflating two ideas. Would it surprise you if I said it would be preferable to have a (pleasant) afterlife? If I said I hope I survive beyond physical death? But belief isn't about what's ideal. I'd love to believe that I'll "survive" death, but I can't because I find absolutely no reason to believe that, and ample evidence to believe the contrary.Basically, I'm just saying that I'm against believing in something because it's preferable to believing it exists over the alternative. Our justifications for belief should withstand greater intellectual rigor than that.
Ok brief summary NDEs prove life after death. Hypnosis, dreams, drugs etc don't disprove NDEs. You need your brain to work properly in order to percieve
reality which is why in the previous example people see things, it's because there brain is working.
In NDEs a person is having a cardiac arrest which means that there brain and heart is shutting down so they shouldn't be able to percieve anything. In order to be alive you need your brain and heart to work if they stop working we can assume that the person is dead. Even if you want to argue that the person is still alive it still doesn't explain it. In NDE's people see a reality which is just as real as this one or even more real. If they were still alive they should have disjointed and muddled perception because even if they are still alive their braiin is not going to be working well.
Atheists have also have had NDE's as well so that contradicts the idea that people are just seeing what they believe.
Originally posted by Digi
Vague statement is vague.
The proof that gods exist is because humans exist. You can determine that gods exist just by looking at nature, doesn't have to have anything to do with wishful thinking.
Originally posted by Digi
Not much to elaborate on. I said most of it earlier. I've had more than a few inquiries along the lines of "how do you define your morality?" or "how do you determine right from wrong?" Both from curious acquaintances as well as friends. Many theists have a hard time understanding morality outside a theistic worldview.
Well can't quite remember what you said but you can certainly have morals if you're an athiest, but when it's all said and done believing that you're going to die and thats the end of it and believing that you can get away with something even if you don't get caught isn't good. Don't try to act like it is.
Originally posted by Deadline
Well they don't agree because humans like to find excuses for hating other humans not because it's an inherent trait of religion.
Yes and no. To me, all good is human good, and all evil is human evil. So I'm of the mind that if you removed religion, most of both would continue to exist. However, there are such things as catalysts for good/evil. Religion can undoubtedly be a catalyst either way, especially when it involves large groups of people. Few other institutions can mobilize such fervor.
The trick is in identifying which sects, or sometimes which specific beliefs, act as those negative catalysts. But it's irresponsible to pretend they don't exist.
Originally posted by Deadline
Agreed not sure about the determinist thing, I dunno maybe sometimes retribution isn't a bad thing.
According to our best knowledge, we live in an entirely deterministic universe, from which we are not exempt. In most schools of philosophy, this makes religious concepts of free will incoherent, and also calls into question things like punishment, retribution, and moral responsibility.
Originally posted by Deadline
Ok brief summary NDEs prove life after death...
I appreciate the summary, but I've also researched NDEs extensively. They do no such thing as prove an afterlife, and most of the effects of NDEs have entirely scientifically sound explanations behind them. If you really think this unequivocally proves an afterlife, your research is incomplete.
Originally posted by Deadline
The proof that gods exist is because humans exist. You can determine that gods exist just by looking at nature, doesn't have to have anything to do with wishful thinking.
This was a defensible position as recently as probably 100 years ago. But our understanding of the universe has evolved. Several plausible theories exist that explain how the universe came to be without the need for such divine intervention. Some have empirical evidence to back them up, and/or mathematical models that suggest their validity. It would take too much of our time to go into each now, but they're easily found. Granted, it's not absolute proof, but it's enough to call BS on arguments like this for the existence of god.
Even if we assume for the sake of argument that a creator NEEDS to be present, it's a monumental logical leap to decide that it's a theistic god. Why not an extradimensional creative force? Or other unknown origin?
At the absolute worst, we could say we don't know for sure, at which point your god hypothesis lacks evidence and is no more likely to be the correct hypothesis than a scientific, mathematical, or other explanation (and, frankly, less likely than some with at least some evidence for them).
Originally posted by Deadline
Well can't quite remember what you said but you can certainly have morals if you're an athiest, but when it's all said and done believing that you're going to die and thats the end of it and believing that you can get away with something even if you don't get caught isn't good. Don't try to act like it is.
Sure, but doing something thinking you won't be caught isn't an atheistic trait. It's a d*ck-ish trait, and has nothing to do with atheism, which is only - I repeat, only - a lack of a belief in a god or gods. Applying moral characteristics to atheism is flatly false, since at that point morals are determined individually.
But, back to your example, the consequence is that you introduce evil, negativity, suffering, sadness, etc. into the world. There doesn't need to be a divine judge for this to be readily apparent.
Originally posted by Digi
...I appreciate the summary, but I've also researched NDEs extensively. They do no such thing as prove an afterlife, and most of the effects of NDEs have entirely scientifically sound explanations behind them. If you really think this unequivocally proves an afterlife, your research is incomplete...
👆
Originally posted by Bentley
So what about animal evil, plant evil, bacteria evil etc.?
Lol. I really had to clarify that I was talking about human actions when I said "all"? I realize this is likely just some softcore trolling, but we have enough serious pedants as it is in the religion forums without having to get sidetracked with this.