We should liberate Kuwait ...

[Fox]

Atheism doesn't claim anything about the world that needs to be proven. It does not say that "God doesn't exist in the world", rather it says "the concept of God is meaningless" (which I have proven on a number of occasions)

Similarly, the word "atheism" is commonly used to mean "belief that God doesn't exist", because most people think you have to believe in something, so if you dont believe in God, you must believe in no-God. The actual definition of the word should be left up to the experts in the field, not to the ignorant masses.

Atheism is not moral relativism. Atheism is not a moral philosophy at all, it's only a statement about one particular aspect of life: namely the existence of God(s).

Dude, keep it coming, this is comedy gold! So which are you, an expert or not?

Objectivist atheists, for example, have an absolute moral philosophy. Others don't have a moral philosophy. Still others have one that's not absolute.

How can they have an 'absolute moral philosophy' HOW? More specifically, what are their beliefs based on which is absolute?

Atheism may not primarily be a moral philosophy, but it certainly is a secondary one. When you take the responsibility of God-hood away from God (ie determining right from wrong), it gets ascribed to the individual (most likely, definitely not God, so it gets put somewhere). Any discussion of atheism without the moral implications is incomplete and immature, to argue that they are mutually exclusive is asinine.

Theism implies lack of personal responsibility because it implies your insignificance and weakness compared to God. God pretty much controls (or CAN control) every aspect of your life, so you NEVER know whether you are making a decision of your own, or if you were PREDETERMINED to have made this decision. So if you make a mistake, you can always say "I guess this is God's plan". Notice how often people say "God works in mysterious ways". It's to explain away all the mistakes that they and others have made, and thus absolve everyone of responsibility.

Now you're decribing Calvinism, for which I would agree with you on (and I disdain calvinism) and already stated so, are you just looking for reasons to argue? ye gads man! I could pick apart other things you've said, but I'm sure it'd be a waste of time.

[ProgRocker]

How can they have an 'absolute moral philosophy' HOW? More specifically, what are their beliefs based on which is absolute?

Their moral philosophy is based on this absolute: an action is right if it is in your rational self-interest. If it's against your rational self-interest, then it's wrong. There is no grey area. An action cant be right for one person and wrong for another.

Now you may argue: how do we really know if something is really in one's rational self-interest? I agree, I think that's one of the biggest flaws of objectivism. However, this doesn't disqualify it from being an absolute moral philosophy. Certainly Christians believe in moral absolutes, but even they cant agree among themselves on what many of those absolutes are.

Atheism may not primarily be a moral philosophy, but it certainly is a secondary one. When you take the responsibility of God-hood away from God (ie determining right from wrong), it gets ascribed to the individual (most likely, definitely not God, so it gets put somewhere).

Atheism is a moral philosophy only in the sense that it does say: morality doesn't come from God. Atheism allows for any other kind of morality or immorality whatsoever.

[SethFWF]

What I don't understand about the whole "not believing in anything outside the realm of the physical" is what makes any "simple human"(pun intended) feel that they can know what makes the universe work, what lies outside of this world, and that there is nothing that exists outside the physical?

We do know that the universe is limitless, at least we certainly can see no end to it...so how can any of us really know what or who exists out there? I'm not speaking just of life on another planet(another thread perhaps?), but life that created and organized this universe. Yes, that is outside the realm of the physical and at this point we can't transend that and prove anything. But at the same time, to say the concept of God is meaningless is very shortsighted...even in our limited state of intelligence.

Don't know if anyone's watching that show "Revelations", but one of the guys(who is an atheist) said that it is absolutely insane to think or believe that a tornado could travel through a junk yark and all the pieces fall into place to create the Taj Mahal...but yet this is how we came about. Where's the logic in that? Just because we can't interact with the force that created us, then there is no force?

I am too amazed at all that's around me(and I know the arguement that I'm only amazed because I know no different) to think it happened by chance...the instincts that animals and insects have, human conception and childbirth, the still unknown mysteries of our brains and bodies. If there were no plan to all of this, why is it so hard for us to explain any of it?

Seth

[ProgRocker]

I already explained this. It is meaningless to say "outside the physical reality", because once we say something meaningful, it becomes physical. That's how we define physical. You may claim that's a limitation of our human brain, and it may very well be, but that's the way it is. We can't know anything that we can't know. So why make up meaningless concepts?

The Taj Mahal analogy abuses our sense of perception and time. Taj Mahal is one object, out of an infinite number of possible objects that the nature could have made. So the probability of it being made at random is 0. However, if the argument is that the nature couldn't create anything magnificent, then I would strongly disagree: look at the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, the Amazon, etc.

Again, your argument about evolution is based on a common misconception. Evolution is anything but random. It's guided by a very deterministic principle of natural selection. The reason why we still cant explain how our bodies work is that it took billions of years. Modern science is only 50-200 years old (depending on when you start counting it as modern)

[Fox]

Dude, Rational Self-interest is an oxymoron. LMAO!

keep it coming, comedy gold!

Granted you semi-admited so, but still.

Morals are morals because they are not rational.

Self-interest does not extend to the realm of logic either.

And it may be absolute to the individual but not to everyone else, and you must be respectful to not be a hypocrite, thusly its degenerated to relativism pretty quickly. Nice try though.

With God, we have his word (the bible) which is pretty clear on many things, grey on a few, and doesn't even mention others (modern problems, such as genetic engineering for example)

Fact: if God exists we will be jugded on our right and wrongs, based on how he's defined them.

Fact: if no gods exist we will die and be forgotten about, right and wrong are merely illusions.

[ProgRocker]

How do you define "absolute morals"? It's absolute if it's not up to you to choose what's right and what's wrong. That is, everyone has the same set of morals. This is as opposed to "moral relativism", where different cultures may have equally acceptable but different sets of moral standards.

This is what objectivism is: there is a very specific set of morals, and anyone who does otherwise is immoral. This isn't just absolute to the individual. This is absolute to everyone, they claim. Just like religion - I can say your morals are not absolute to me, but you still claim they are since you claim God does exist. Likewise, you may say objectivist morals don't apply to you, but they'd say they do, you just dont realize it.

What you are referring to are consequences of being moral or immoral. Does absolute morality necessarily have to have consequences? I dont think so. It just has to be absolutely universally true.

If no God exists, we may be forgetten about, but that's irrelevant. What you're taking about are the incentives to act morally or immorally. A moral philosophy doesn't have to be "effective" in persuading people to follow it. That may be a question for potential dictators who want to exploit our gullibility. For this discussion, it only matters that morality is absolute. And for me personally, even that doesn't matter

[SethFWF]

"It's guided by a very deterministic principle of natural selection."[/color]

Who or what determined it? That sentence implies that someone or something had to set the parameters. If not, then the principle came about randomly also.

"However, if the argument is that the nature couldn't create anything magnificent, then I would strongly disagree: look at the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, the Amazon, etc." [/color]

Nature can create beautiful things, but not even close to the complexity of humans and animals. Not to mention the complexity of nature itself..so it's a chicken and egg debate..

Seth

[ProgRocker]

Come on, Seth, that's ridiculous. Nobody and nothing "determined" the principle of natural selection. It just always existed. No beginning. To say that everything must have a beginning is to set yourself up for a contradiction. Then God has a beginning, so it's not really God, is it?

Humans create more complex things because we set that as a goal. Nature has no goal. It's guided by a very blind, very purposeless, and very deterministic principles. Given billions of years, however, nature has created complex animals, I wouldnt say that Taj Mahal is more impressive than a human brain.

[SethFWF]

If I go by the Bible, then God had no beginning and has no end according to it. So I agree that not everything has to have a beginning. But I don't agree that anything can be deterministic without it first being determined by someone or something. And no, that doesn't apply to God....and with that we get into a far more intricate set of rules than we can comprehend.

I can't limit this to just the earth and humans/animals. The entire universe is far more complex than anything we've been exposed to, and I refuse to believe that it's always existed in a random manner with no creator. I do find your arguement interesting though that we have nothing to compare this complexity and awesomeness(not a word, I know... ) to and it just is the way it is. Not an easy one to debate, but that's just a small part of it. Biblical history along with prophecy adds to a believers conviction and faith in where we came from. I know that's not an arguement for you though.

Seth

[Fox]

ProgRocker said:

How do you define "absolute morals"? It's absolute if it's not up to you to choose what's right and what's wrong. That is, everyone has the same set of morals. This is as opposed to "moral relativism", where different cultures may have equally acceptable but different sets of moral standards.

Dude, that's exactly why God is required for absolute morallity, morals are the antithesis of logic. The only reason they can exist is because an outside force, with authority says they should. Otherwise we've made themup, they're not absolute and following them is irrational.

[ProgRocker]

Fox said:

Dude, that's exactly why God is required for absolute morallity, morals are the antithesis of logic. The only reason they can exist is because an outside force, with authority says they should. Otherwise we've made themup, they're not absolute and following them is irrational.

What if this outside force IS logic? That's what the objectivists claim. Logic isn't any less infallible than God.

[Fox]

Morals are not derrived they're dictated (and arbitrary)

Logic is the process of deriving.

Then again, maybe you don't get more arbitrary than deriving from nothing.

[ProgRocker]

I dont know that morals have to be dictated. This belief of yours may be a result of your personal view on morals.

As far as I know, morals are simply "rules of behavior", which dictate what's "right" and what's "wrong". If you can "derive" such a set of rules logically, why isn't morals?

[Fox]

dictionary.reference.com/search?q=morals

Definition #6 pretty much states its arbitrary.

I mean saying 2+2=3 isn't morally wrong, its factually wrong. So saying its a difference between right and wrong just doesn't cut it.

But back to my original point. If you do not have an authorative source to dictate it, its moral relativism.

So even if you use logic to dictate morals, you have to establish that you're only using indisputable absolute facts to begin your derrivation, or else its still relativism.

[ProgRocker]

If morals MUST be something that's not "factually" right, then why would anyone want to follow them? I must say that if this is how you define morals, then morals are a bad thing to have.

If you do not have an authorative source to dictate it, its moral relativism.


But that makes theist morals also relative, since a source can be authoritative only if it is proven to exist. According to this definition, no absolute moral systems are known to exist.