Anonymous wrote:They want to change your mind and make sure to take people away from their God. It's pretty evil in my opinion.
That's because you are brainwashed, and you do not realize the hard your beliefs are doing to the world (and have for a long time).
Open your eyes and see that there is insufficient evidence to believe there is a god - certainly not to the point where you need to enforce these crazy bronze-age beliefs on others through public policy and societal pressures. That is TRUE evil. REAL evil. Evil that you put on REAL humans EVERY DAY.
And you aren't using public policy and societal pressures to enforce your beliefs? Ask yourself - if you moved to a country where Sharia law was in effect, or a community governed by Orthodox Jews or the left's favorite hated Christian nationalists, would you try to make change? And do you think some people would - gasp - disagree?
Yes. Because my beliefs are better and more moral than yours, as well as being reinforced by the US constitution.
More moral by what standard? What sets the objective outside standard for you?
And as far as the bolded, the constitution places limits on what the federal government can do regarding free assembly, free speech, freedom of religious exercise and the like. It absolutely doesn't prioritize non-belief over belief. In fact it's there to say the government may not do that, just like they may not decide Anglicans or the Bahai Faith are the true religion of the US.
Why would I possibly need anyone to set a standard outside of my own morality? That's nonsense.
And I disagree with you on what the constitution says. It says no established religion, which means you can't make policy based on xtianity or any other equally BS myth. But that is happening.
You said "more moral." I asked "by what standard." You said "me."
So you're now the arbiter of morality?
The irony exhibited in your statement, when your hole ethos is based on the idea that you know what behavior is required or else you will suffer hell for eternity, is so far off the charts I cannot reply to it. You have exactly 0% self-awareness.
I'll put it this way: if you believe in the things endorsed in the bible (slavery, murder, infanticide, incest, persecution of homosexuals, denial of bodily autonomy, the list goes on and on), my morality is way, way superior to yours. Without question.
And yet the Nazis, per the account of Ellie Wiesel, also thought they were more moral than others.
Yet they were people like us. Part of the internal anguish in examining the Holocaust comes from wondering whether we actually could do what they did. Some claim the Nazis were completely psychopathic. Others disagree, like Elie Wiesel who wrote that, "They did not think that what they were doing was wrong. They were convinced that what they did was good" [11]. They thought they were doing what was best for humanity, or at least for their Volk. Then and now, the same questions were asked. "Who shall live and who shall die? And, Who belongs to the community entitled to our protection? Then and now, the subject at hand is killing, and letting die, and helping to die, and using the dead" [12]. Then and now, similar arguments based on similar worldviews were used to justify controversial practices.
My point is simply that whenever individual humans or small groups of humans are the arbiter of morality, you can get to some really dark and scary places within a few years, or decades. Isn't that exactly what people are worried about with the Trump administration? And yet your argument is "but my way is superior just because it is!" That's not actually one of the rational arguments many other atheists on this forum claim for their side, because it has no argument or reason associated with it, but gut feeling.
If you said, like some, that careful consideration of the natural world grounded your morality that would be an argument. Or if you said like others than humanity agreed on a set of goals and ethics and reasoned out morality from there, that would be an argument (one I have seen on this forum). But to just declare the self-evident superiority of your morality over the morality of all religions everywhere (and to lump them together is ridiculous, BTW) is not an argument.
So you don't think your morality is superior to the Nazi's? I bet you do, and I bet it is. So you do the same thing.
I am sure mine is.
As I am sure it is better that the morality in the bible as described above.
As you are well aware, we are going to 100% differ on where our starting point for an argument is. I think an outside standard (God) determines morality. You have yet to seriously interact with any of the arguments for external moral standards.
Based on the system of argument through which I see the world it does not matter what I think about a moral code. Based on your system, that's all that matters. My point is - when you leave it up to individuals, you aren't guarateed a good outcome. But you haven't interacted with that argument at all either.
Since there is zero evidence for the supernatural, there is no reason to "interact" with any theory of morality based on that. For the sake of argument, how would that even work?
As you should be well aware if you are on a religion forum, every person who truly believes in God will have a deeply personal experiential argument for God. It's the only solid argument that exists.
You just changed the premise totally, to another claim about god, not an argument for the origin of morality. And it is anything but solid, especially when described as vaguely as you have done. Why don't you give your experiential argument, specifically? So it can be addressed specifically?
No, I didn't. You said there's no proof for God and so no one can interact with it. I said there is proof for God that exists for every believer, but it's experiential. As I mentioned in another thread there are philosophers who are religious who have done their best to get to a proof for God from argument, but they can only get close not all the way there. That is also true of a proof for God not existing, though.
And I can't describe the experience of God that every believer has, because they are all different. Also they are not logical arguments, nor can they be. They are an utterly different category of understanding. It's like C. S. Lewis said, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” I don't expect that argument to convince anyone unless they too have been there, because that's not the kind of argument it is.
Sigh... yes you DID, but ok, you want to switch from the origin of morality back to the existence of god. And you claim everyone has experiential evidence but won't provide your own when asked. You commit an beyond an argument from authority fallacy with CS Lewis as if that should matter. And you claim the arguments are illogical and in a "different category of understanding" (whatever the hell that is). Yet you claim to understand it logically and in fact think everyone should design their lives around it....
Does not seem like you are interested in a true engagement on the facts. Can't say I blame you. But I'll try again.
What is YOUR experiential argument?
Here's why I didn't want to engage - if I give you my experiential argument, you'll just try and tell me all the reasons it wasn't God I was experiencing. And honestly, that seems exhausting to me because right now I want to believe in God. And also I don't think my experience should be persuading you to believe in God. I've heard some totally crazy experiential arguments that I found fun and compelling, but mine is boring and mundane. And even the compelling ones are not a logical proof God exists, because as we both agree that cannot exist.
DP again. - just reminding you that there is no logical proof for any supernatural beings (e.g., fairies, God, Santa). And why do you want to believe in God? When I believed in God it was because I liked the idea of going to heaven why I died.
Anonymous wrote:They want to change your mind and make sure to take people away from their God. It's pretty evil in my opinion.
That's because you are brainwashed, and you do not realize the hard your beliefs are doing to the world (and have for a long time).
Open your eyes and see that there is insufficient evidence to believe there is a god - certainly not to the point where you need to enforce these crazy bronze-age beliefs on others through public policy and societal pressures. That is TRUE evil. REAL evil. Evil that you put on REAL humans EVERY DAY.
And you aren't using public policy and societal pressures to enforce your beliefs? Ask yourself - if you moved to a country where Sharia law was in effect, or a community governed by Orthodox Jews or the left's favorite hated Christian nationalists, would you try to make change? And do you think some people would - gasp - disagree?
Yes. Because my beliefs are better and more moral than yours, as well as being reinforced by the US constitution.
More moral by what standard? What sets the objective outside standard for you?
And as far as the bolded, the constitution places limits on what the federal government can do regarding free assembly, free speech, freedom of religious exercise and the like. It absolutely doesn't prioritize non-belief over belief. In fact it's there to say the government may not do that, just like they may not decide Anglicans or the Bahai Faith are the true religion of the US.
Why would I possibly need anyone to set a standard outside of my own morality? That's nonsense.
And I disagree with you on what the constitution says. It says no established religion, which means you can't make policy based on xtianity or any other equally BS myth. But that is happening.
You said "more moral." I asked "by what standard." You said "me."
So you're now the arbiter of morality?
The irony exhibited in your statement, when your hole ethos is based on the idea that you know what behavior is required or else you will suffer hell for eternity, is so far off the charts I cannot reply to it. You have exactly 0% self-awareness.
I'll put it this way: if you believe in the things endorsed in the bible (slavery, murder, infanticide, incest, persecution of homosexuals, denial of bodily autonomy, the list goes on and on), my morality is way, way superior to yours. Without question.
And yet the Nazis, per the account of Ellie Wiesel, also thought they were more moral than others.
Yet they were people like us. Part of the internal anguish in examining the Holocaust comes from wondering whether we actually could do what they did. Some claim the Nazis were completely psychopathic. Others disagree, like Elie Wiesel who wrote that, "They did not think that what they were doing was wrong. They were convinced that what they did was good" [11]. They thought they were doing what was best for humanity, or at least for their Volk. Then and now, the same questions were asked. "Who shall live and who shall die? And, Who belongs to the community entitled to our protection? Then and now, the subject at hand is killing, and letting die, and helping to die, and using the dead" [12]. Then and now, similar arguments based on similar worldviews were used to justify controversial practices.
My point is simply that whenever individual humans or small groups of humans are the arbiter of morality, you can get to some really dark and scary places within a few years, or decades. Isn't that exactly what people are worried about with the Trump administration? And yet your argument is "but my way is superior just because it is!" That's not actually one of the rational arguments many other atheists on this forum claim for their side, because it has no argument or reason associated with it, but gut feeling.
If you said, like some, that careful consideration of the natural world grounded your morality that would be an argument. Or if you said like others than humanity agreed on a set of goals and ethics and reasoned out morality from there, that would be an argument (one I have seen on this forum). But to just declare the self-evident superiority of your morality over the morality of all religions everywhere (and to lump them together is ridiculous, BTW) is not an argument.
So you don't think your morality is superior to the Nazi's? I bet you do, and I bet it is. So you do the same thing.
I am sure mine is.
As I am sure it is better that the morality in the bible as described above.
As you are well aware, we are going to 100% differ on where our starting point for an argument is. I think an outside standard (God) determines morality. You have yet to seriously interact with any of the arguments for external moral standards.
Based on the system of argument through which I see the world it does not matter what I think about a moral code. Based on your system, that's all that matters. My point is - when you leave it up to individuals, you aren't guarateed a good outcome. But you haven't interacted with that argument at all either.
Since there is zero evidence for the supernatural, there is no reason to "interact" with any theory of morality based on that. For the sake of argument, how would that even work?
As you should be well aware if you are on a religion forum, every person who truly believes in God will have a deeply personal experiential argument for God. It's the only solid argument that exists.
You just changed the premise totally, to another claim about god, not an argument for the origin of morality. And it is anything but solid, especially when described as vaguely as you have done. Why don't you give your experiential argument, specifically? So it can be addressed specifically?
No, I didn't. You said there's no proof for God and so no one can interact with it. I said there is proof for God that exists for every believer, but it's experiential. As I mentioned in another thread there are philosophers who are religious who have done their best to get to a proof for God from argument, but they can only get close not all the way there. That is also true of a proof for God not existing, though.
And I can't describe the experience of God that every believer has, because they are all different. Also they are not logical arguments, nor can they be. They are an utterly different category of understanding. It's like C. S. Lewis said, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” I don't expect that argument to convince anyone unless they too have been there, because that's not the kind of argument it is.
Anonymous wrote:They want to change your mind and make sure to take people away from their God. It's pretty evil in my opinion.
That's because you are brainwashed, and you do not realize the hard your beliefs are doing to the world (and have for a long time).
Open your eyes and see that there is insufficient evidence to believe there is a god - certainly not to the point where you need to enforce these crazy bronze-age beliefs on others through public policy and societal pressures. That is TRUE evil. REAL evil. Evil that you put on REAL humans EVERY DAY.
And you aren't using public policy and societal pressures to enforce your beliefs? Ask yourself - if you moved to a country where Sharia law was in effect, or a community governed by Orthodox Jews or the left's favorite hated Christian nationalists, would you try to make change? And do you think some people would - gasp - disagree?
Yes. Because my beliefs are better and more moral than yours, as well as being reinforced by the US constitution.
More moral by what standard? What sets the objective outside standard for you?
And as far as the bolded, the constitution places limits on what the federal government can do regarding free assembly, free speech, freedom of religious exercise and the like. It absolutely doesn't prioritize non-belief over belief. In fact it's there to say the government may not do that, just like they may not decide Anglicans or the Bahai Faith are the true religion of the US.
Why would I possibly need anyone to set a standard outside of my own morality? That's nonsense.
And I disagree with you on what the constitution says. It says no established religion, which means you can't make policy based on xtianity or any other equally BS myth. But that is happening.
You said "more moral." I asked "by what standard." You said "me."
So you're now the arbiter of morality?
The irony exhibited in your statement, when your hole ethos is based on the idea that you know what behavior is required or else you will suffer hell for eternity, is so far off the charts I cannot reply to it. You have exactly 0% self-awareness.
I'll put it this way: if you believe in the things endorsed in the bible (slavery, murder, infanticide, incest, persecution of homosexuals, denial of bodily autonomy, the list goes on and on), my morality is way, way superior to yours. Without question.
And yet the Nazis, per the account of Ellie Wiesel, also thought they were more moral than others.
Yet they were people like us. Part of the internal anguish in examining the Holocaust comes from wondering whether we actually could do what they did. Some claim the Nazis were completely psychopathic. Others disagree, like Elie Wiesel who wrote that, "They did not think that what they were doing was wrong. They were convinced that what they did was good" [11]. They thought they were doing what was best for humanity, or at least for their Volk. Then and now, the same questions were asked. "Who shall live and who shall die? And, Who belongs to the community entitled to our protection? Then and now, the subject at hand is killing, and letting die, and helping to die, and using the dead" [12]. Then and now, similar arguments based on similar worldviews were used to justify controversial practices.
My point is simply that whenever individual humans or small groups of humans are the arbiter of morality, you can get to some really dark and scary places within a few years, or decades. Isn't that exactly what people are worried about with the Trump administration? And yet your argument is "but my way is superior just because it is!" That's not actually one of the rational arguments many other atheists on this forum claim for their side, because it has no argument or reason associated with it, but gut feeling.
If you said, like some, that careful consideration of the natural world grounded your morality that would be an argument. Or if you said like others than humanity agreed on a set of goals and ethics and reasoned out morality from there, that would be an argument (one I have seen on this forum). But to just declare the self-evident superiority of your morality over the morality of all religions everywhere (and to lump them together is ridiculous, BTW) is not an argument.
So you don't think your morality is superior to the Nazi's? I bet you do, and I bet it is. So you do the same thing.
I am sure mine is.
As I am sure it is better that the morality in the bible as described above.
As you are well aware, we are going to 100% differ on where our starting point for an argument is. I think an outside standard (God) determines morality. You have yet to seriously interact with any of the arguments for external moral standards.
Based on the system of argument through which I see the world it does not matter what I think about a moral code. Based on your system, that's all that matters. My point is - when you leave it up to individuals, you aren't guarateed a good outcome. But you haven't interacted with that argument at all either.
Since there is zero evidence for the supernatural, there is no reason to "interact" with any theory of morality based on that. For the sake of argument, how would that even work?
As you should be well aware if you are on a religion forum, every person who truly believes in God will have a deeply personal experiential argument for God. It's the only solid argument that exists.
You just changed the premise totally, to another claim about god, not an argument for the origin of morality. And it is anything but solid, especially when described as vaguely as you have done. Why don't you give your experiential argument, specifically? So it can be addressed specifically?
No, I didn't. You said there's no proof for God and so no one can interact with it. I said there is proof for God that exists for every believer, but it's experiential. As I mentioned in another thread there are philosophers who are religious who have done their best to get to a proof for God from argument, but they can only get close not all the way there. That is also true of a proof for God not existing, though.
And I can't describe the experience of God that every believer has, because they are all different. Also they are not logical arguments, nor can they be. They are an utterly different category of understanding. It's like C. S. Lewis said, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” I don't expect that argument to convince anyone unless they too have been there, because that's not the kind of argument it is.
Sigh... yes you DID, but ok, you want to switch from the origin of morality back to the existence of god. And you claim everyone has experiential evidence but won't provide your own when asked. You commit an beyond an argument from authority fallacy with CS Lewis as if that should matter. And you claim the arguments are illogical and in a "different category of understanding" (whatever the hell that is). Yet you claim to understand it logically and in fact think everyone should design their lives around it....
Does not seem like you are interested in a true engagement on the facts. Can't say I blame you. But I'll try again.
What is YOUR experiential argument?
Here's why I didn't want to engage - if I give you my experiential argument, you'll just try and tell me all the reasons it wasn't God I was experiencing. And honestly, that seems exhausting to me because right now I want to believe in God. And also I don't think my experience should be persuading you to believe in God. I've heard some totally crazy experiential arguments that I found fun and compelling, but mine is boring and mundane. And even the compelling ones are not a logical proof God exists, because as we both agree that cannot exist.
Are you afraid that if you bring your experience out into the open, that once light is shone upon it, that it will lose its brilliance and you will see that its just something dull? You said it yourself that you "want" to believe. You are expressing fear of losing that belief if exposed to criticism.
No, it wouldn't lose it's brilliance at all. But it's also something precious to me, and would you subject something precious to you to every troll on DCUM? If you would, I'd argue that you are at a minimum a glutton for punishment. DCUM is a harsh, harsh place.
Anonymous wrote:They want to change your mind and make sure to take people away from their God. It's pretty evil in my opinion.
That's because you are brainwashed, and you do not realize the hard your beliefs are doing to the world (and have for a long time).
Open your eyes and see that there is insufficient evidence to believe there is a god - certainly not to the point where you need to enforce these crazy bronze-age beliefs on others through public policy and societal pressures. That is TRUE evil. REAL evil. Evil that you put on REAL humans EVERY DAY.
And you aren't using public policy and societal pressures to enforce your beliefs? Ask yourself - if you moved to a country where Sharia law was in effect, or a community governed by Orthodox Jews or the left's favorite hated Christian nationalists, would you try to make change? And do you think some people would - gasp - disagree?
Yes. Because my beliefs are better and more moral than yours, as well as being reinforced by the US constitution.
More moral by what standard? What sets the objective outside standard for you?
And as far as the bolded, the constitution places limits on what the federal government can do regarding free assembly, free speech, freedom of religious exercise and the like. It absolutely doesn't prioritize non-belief over belief. In fact it's there to say the government may not do that, just like they may not decide Anglicans or the Bahai Faith are the true religion of the US.
Why would I possibly need anyone to set a standard outside of my own morality? That's nonsense.
And I disagree with you on what the constitution says. It says no established religion, which means you can't make policy based on xtianity or any other equally BS myth. But that is happening.
You said "more moral." I asked "by what standard." You said "me."
So you're now the arbiter of morality?
The irony exhibited in your statement, when your hole ethos is based on the idea that you know what behavior is required or else you will suffer hell for eternity, is so far off the charts I cannot reply to it. You have exactly 0% self-awareness.
I'll put it this way: if you believe in the things endorsed in the bible (slavery, murder, infanticide, incest, persecution of homosexuals, denial of bodily autonomy, the list goes on and on), my morality is way, way superior to yours. Without question.
And yet the Nazis, per the account of Ellie Wiesel, also thought they were more moral than others.
Yet they were people like us. Part of the internal anguish in examining the Holocaust comes from wondering whether we actually could do what they did. Some claim the Nazis were completely psychopathic. Others disagree, like Elie Wiesel who wrote that, "They did not think that what they were doing was wrong. They were convinced that what they did was good" [11]. They thought they were doing what was best for humanity, or at least for their Volk. Then and now, the same questions were asked. "Who shall live and who shall die? And, Who belongs to the community entitled to our protection? Then and now, the subject at hand is killing, and letting die, and helping to die, and using the dead" [12]. Then and now, similar arguments based on similar worldviews were used to justify controversial practices.
My point is simply that whenever individual humans or small groups of humans are the arbiter of morality, you can get to some really dark and scary places within a few years, or decades. Isn't that exactly what people are worried about with the Trump administration? And yet your argument is "but my way is superior just because it is!" That's not actually one of the rational arguments many other atheists on this forum claim for their side, because it has no argument or reason associated with it, but gut feeling.
If you said, like some, that careful consideration of the natural world grounded your morality that would be an argument. Or if you said like others than humanity agreed on a set of goals and ethics and reasoned out morality from there, that would be an argument (one I have seen on this forum). But to just declare the self-evident superiority of your morality over the morality of all religions everywhere (and to lump them together is ridiculous, BTW) is not an argument.
So you don't think your morality is superior to the Nazi's? I bet you do, and I bet it is. So you do the same thing.
I am sure mine is.
As I am sure it is better that the morality in the bible as described above.
As you are well aware, we are going to 100% differ on where our starting point for an argument is. I think an outside standard (God) determines morality. You have yet to seriously interact with any of the arguments for external moral standards.
Based on the system of argument through which I see the world it does not matter what I think about a moral code. Based on your system, that's all that matters. My point is - when you leave it up to individuals, you aren't guarateed a good outcome. But you haven't interacted with that argument at all either.
Since there is zero evidence for the supernatural, there is no reason to "interact" with any theory of morality based on that. For the sake of argument, how would that even work?
As you should be well aware if you are on a religion forum, every person who truly believes in God will have a deeply personal experiential argument for God. It's the only solid argument that exists.
You just changed the premise totally, to another claim about god, not an argument for the origin of morality. And it is anything but solid, especially when described as vaguely as you have done. Why don't you give your experiential argument, specifically? So it can be addressed specifically?
No, I didn't. You said there's no proof for God and so no one can interact with it. I said there is proof for God that exists for every believer, but it's experiential. As I mentioned in another thread there are philosophers who are religious who have done their best to get to a proof for God from argument, but they can only get close not all the way there. That is also true of a proof for God not existing, though.
And I can't describe the experience of God that every believer has, because they are all different. Also they are not logical arguments, nor can they be. They are an utterly different category of understanding. It's like C. S. Lewis said, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” I don't expect that argument to convince anyone unless they too have been there, because that's not the kind of argument it is.
Sigh... yes you DID, but ok, you want to switch from the origin of morality back to the existence of god. And you claim everyone has experiential evidence but won't provide your own when asked. You commit an beyond an argument from authority fallacy with CS Lewis as if that should matter. And you claim the arguments are illogical and in a "different category of understanding" (whatever the hell that is). Yet you claim to understand it logically and in fact think everyone should design their lives around it....
Does not seem like you are interested in a true engagement on the facts. Can't say I blame you. But I'll try again.
What is YOUR experiential argument?
Here's why I didn't want to engage - if I give you my experiential argument, you'll just try and tell me all the reasons it wasn't God I was experiencing. And honestly, that seems exhausting to me because right now I want to believe in God. And also I don't think my experience should be persuading you to believe in God. I've heard some totally crazy experiential arguments that I found fun and compelling, but mine is boring and mundane. And even the compelling ones are not a logical proof God exists, because as we both agree that cannot exist.
DP again. - just reminding you that there is no logical proof for any supernatural beings (e.g., fairies, God, Santa). And why do you want to believe in God? When I believed in God it was because I liked the idea of going to heaven why I died.
Anonymous wrote:They want to change your mind and make sure to take people away from their God. It's pretty evil in my opinion.
That's because you are brainwashed, and you do not realize the hard your beliefs are doing to the world (and have for a long time).
Open your eyes and see that there is insufficient evidence to believe there is a god - certainly not to the point where you need to enforce these crazy bronze-age beliefs on others through public policy and societal pressures. That is TRUE evil. REAL evil. Evil that you put on REAL humans EVERY DAY.
And you aren't using public policy and societal pressures to enforce your beliefs? Ask yourself - if you moved to a country where Sharia law was in effect, or a community governed by Orthodox Jews or the left's favorite hated Christian nationalists, would you try to make change? And do you think some people would - gasp - disagree?
Yes. Because my beliefs are better and more moral than yours, as well as being reinforced by the US constitution.
More moral by what standard? What sets the objective outside standard for you?
And as far as the bolded, the constitution places limits on what the federal government can do regarding free assembly, free speech, freedom of religious exercise and the like. It absolutely doesn't prioritize non-belief over belief. In fact it's there to say the government may not do that, just like they may not decide Anglicans or the Bahai Faith are the true religion of the US.
Why would I possibly need anyone to set a standard outside of my own morality? That's nonsense.
And I disagree with you on what the constitution says. It says no established religion, which means you can't make policy based on xtianity or any other equally BS myth. But that is happening.
You said "more moral." I asked "by what standard." You said "me."
So you're now the arbiter of morality?
The irony exhibited in your statement, when your hole ethos is based on the idea that you know what behavior is required or else you will suffer hell for eternity, is so far off the charts I cannot reply to it. You have exactly 0% self-awareness.
I'll put it this way: if you believe in the things endorsed in the bible (slavery, murder, infanticide, incest, persecution of homosexuals, denial of bodily autonomy, the list goes on and on), my morality is way, way superior to yours. Without question.
And yet the Nazis, per the account of Ellie Wiesel, also thought they were more moral than others.
Yet they were people like us. Part of the internal anguish in examining the Holocaust comes from wondering whether we actually could do what they did. Some claim the Nazis were completely psychopathic. Others disagree, like Elie Wiesel who wrote that, "They did not think that what they were doing was wrong. They were convinced that what they did was good" [11]. They thought they were doing what was best for humanity, or at least for their Volk. Then and now, the same questions were asked. "Who shall live and who shall die? And, Who belongs to the community entitled to our protection? Then and now, the subject at hand is killing, and letting die, and helping to die, and using the dead" [12]. Then and now, similar arguments based on similar worldviews were used to justify controversial practices.
My point is simply that whenever individual humans or small groups of humans are the arbiter of morality, you can get to some really dark and scary places within a few years, or decades. Isn't that exactly what people are worried about with the Trump administration? And yet your argument is "but my way is superior just because it is!" That's not actually one of the rational arguments many other atheists on this forum claim for their side, because it has no argument or reason associated with it, but gut feeling.
If you said, like some, that careful consideration of the natural world grounded your morality that would be an argument. Or if you said like others than humanity agreed on a set of goals and ethics and reasoned out morality from there, that would be an argument (one I have seen on this forum). But to just declare the self-evident superiority of your morality over the morality of all religions everywhere (and to lump them together is ridiculous, BTW) is not an argument.
So you don't think your morality is superior to the Nazi's? I bet you do, and I bet it is. So you do the same thing.
I am sure mine is.
As I am sure it is better that the morality in the bible as described above.
As you are well aware, we are going to 100% differ on where our starting point for an argument is. I think an outside standard (God) determines morality. You have yet to seriously interact with any of the arguments for external moral standards.
Based on the system of argument through which I see the world it does not matter what I think about a moral code. Based on your system, that's all that matters. My point is - when you leave it up to individuals, you aren't guarateed a good outcome. But you haven't interacted with that argument at all either.
Since there is zero evidence for the supernatural, there is no reason to "interact" with any theory of morality based on that. For the sake of argument, how would that even work?
As you should be well aware if you are on a religion forum, every person who truly believes in God will have a deeply personal experiential argument for God. It's the only solid argument that exists.
You just changed the premise totally, to another claim about god, not an argument for the origin of morality. And it is anything but solid, especially when described as vaguely as you have done. Why don't you give your experiential argument, specifically? So it can be addressed specifically?
No, I didn't. You said there's no proof for God and so no one can interact with it. I said there is proof for God that exists for every believer, but it's experiential. As I mentioned in another thread there are philosophers who are religious who have done their best to get to a proof for God from argument, but they can only get close not all the way there. That is also true of a proof for God not existing, though.
And I can't describe the experience of God that every believer has, because they are all different. Also they are not logical arguments, nor can they be. They are an utterly different category of understanding. It's like C. S. Lewis said, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” I don't expect that argument to convince anyone unless they too have been there, because that's not the kind of argument it is.
Sigh... yes you DID, but ok, you want to switch from the origin of morality back to the existence of god. And you claim everyone has experiential evidence but won't provide your own when asked. You commit an beyond an argument from authority fallacy with CS Lewis as if that should matter. And you claim the arguments are illogical and in a "different category of understanding" (whatever the hell that is). Yet you claim to understand it logically and in fact think everyone should design their lives around it....
Does not seem like you are interested in a true engagement on the facts. Can't say I blame you. But I'll try again.
What is YOUR experiential argument?
Here's why I didn't want to engage - if I give you my experiential argument, you'll just try and tell me all the reasons it wasn't God I was experiencing. And honestly, that seems exhausting to me because right now I want to believe in God. And also I don't think my experience should be persuading you to believe in God. I've heard some totally crazy experiential arguments that I found fun and compelling, but mine is boring and mundane. And even the compelling ones are not a logical proof God exists, because as we both agree that cannot exist.
Are you afraid that if you bring your experience out into the open, that once light is shone upon it, that it will lose its brilliance and you will see that its just something dull? You said it yourself that you "want" to believe. You are expressing fear of losing that belief if exposed to criticism.
No, it wouldn't lose it's brilliance at all. But it's also something precious to me, and would you subject something precious to you to every troll on DCUM? If you would, I'd argue that you are at a minimum a glutton for punishment. DCUM is a harsh, harsh place.
If I had something that was brilliant and powerful I would share it with everyone.
If I had a something I was unsure of that I knew was very weak I would never reveal it.
Anonymous wrote:Morality stems from a combination of factors, including evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), cultural and societal norms, and personal conscience. It is shaped by our innate sense of empathy and fairness, as well as by philosophical reasoning and the social agreements we make to live harmoniously. Essentially, morality is both a product of our nature and environment, helping individuals and societies navigate what is considered right or wrong.
+1
lol.
And where exactly do cultural and societal norms come from?
There are tons of ethical concepts that are in direct opposition to evolution biology. What is your explanation for this?
Typical. Which part of "combination" do you not understand?
You asserted several factors and I am challenging them both.
Anonymous wrote:Morality stems from a combination of factors, including evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), cultural and societal norms, and personal conscience. It is shaped by our innate sense of empathy and fairness, as well as by philosophical reasoning and the social agreements we make to live harmoniously. Essentially, morality is both a product of our nature and environment, helping individuals and societies navigate what is considered right or wrong.
+1
lol.
And where exactly do cultural and societal norms come from?
There are tons of ethical concepts that are in direct opposition to evolution biology. What is your explanation for this?
Typical. Which part of "combination" do you not understand?
You asserted several factors and I am challenging them both.
What is your response? Or do you not have one?
DP - your argument is stupid. Something has multiple contributing factors and you want them to explain things as if there were only one factor? That's not PP's position.
Anonymous wrote:They want to change your mind and make sure to take people away from their God. It's pretty evil in my opinion.
That's because you are brainwashed, and you do not realize the hard your beliefs are doing to the world (and have for a long time).
Open your eyes and see that there is insufficient evidence to believe there is a god - certainly not to the point where you need to enforce these crazy bronze-age beliefs on others through public policy and societal pressures. That is TRUE evil. REAL evil. Evil that you put on REAL humans EVERY DAY.
And you aren't using public policy and societal pressures to enforce your beliefs? Ask yourself - if you moved to a country where Sharia law was in effect, or a community governed by Orthodox Jews or the left's favorite hated Christian nationalists, would you try to make change? And do you think some people would - gasp - disagree?
Yes. Because my beliefs are better and more moral than yours, as well as being reinforced by the US constitution.
More moral by what standard? What sets the objective outside standard for you?
And as far as the bolded, the constitution places limits on what the federal government can do regarding free assembly, free speech, freedom of religious exercise and the like. It absolutely doesn't prioritize non-belief over belief. In fact it's there to say the government may not do that, just like they may not decide Anglicans or the Bahai Faith are the true religion of the US.
Why would I possibly need anyone to set a standard outside of my own morality? That's nonsense.
And I disagree with you on what the constitution says. It says no established religion, which means you can't make policy based on xtianity or any other equally BS myth. But that is happening.
You said "more moral." I asked "by what standard." You said "me."
So you're now the arbiter of morality?
The irony exhibited in your statement, when your hole ethos is based on the idea that you know what behavior is required or else you will suffer hell for eternity, is so far off the charts I cannot reply to it. You have exactly 0% self-awareness.
I'll put it this way: if you believe in the things endorsed in the bible (slavery, murder, infanticide, incest, persecution of homosexuals, denial of bodily autonomy, the list goes on and on), my morality is way, way superior to yours. Without question.
And yet the Nazis, per the account of Ellie Wiesel, also thought they were more moral than others.
Yet they were people like us. Part of the internal anguish in examining the Holocaust comes from wondering whether we actually could do what they did. Some claim the Nazis were completely psychopathic. Others disagree, like Elie Wiesel who wrote that, "They did not think that what they were doing was wrong. They were convinced that what they did was good" [11]. They thought they were doing what was best for humanity, or at least for their Volk. Then and now, the same questions were asked. "Who shall live and who shall die? And, Who belongs to the community entitled to our protection? Then and now, the subject at hand is killing, and letting die, and helping to die, and using the dead" [12]. Then and now, similar arguments based on similar worldviews were used to justify controversial practices.
My point is simply that whenever individual humans or small groups of humans are the arbiter of morality, you can get to some really dark and scary places within a few years, or decades. Isn't that exactly what people are worried about with the Trump administration? And yet your argument is "but my way is superior just because it is!" That's not actually one of the rational arguments many other atheists on this forum claim for their side, because it has no argument or reason associated with it, but gut feeling.
If you said, like some, that careful consideration of the natural world grounded your morality that would be an argument. Or if you said like others than humanity agreed on a set of goals and ethics and reasoned out morality from there, that would be an argument (one I have seen on this forum). But to just declare the self-evident superiority of your morality over the morality of all religions everywhere (and to lump them together is ridiculous, BTW) is not an argument.
So you don't think your morality is superior to the Nazi's? I bet you do, and I bet it is. So you do the same thing.
I am sure mine is.
As I am sure it is better that the morality in the bible as described above.
As you are well aware, we are going to 100% differ on where our starting point for an argument is. I think an outside standard (God) determines morality. You have yet to seriously interact with any of the arguments for external moral standards.
Based on the system of argument through which I see the world it does not matter what I think about a moral code. Based on your system, that's all that matters. My point is - when you leave it up to individuals, you aren't guarateed a good outcome. But you haven't interacted with that argument at all either.
Since there is zero evidence for the supernatural, there is no reason to "interact" with any theory of morality based on that. For the sake of argument, how would that even work?
As you should be well aware if you are on a religion forum, every person who truly believes in God will have a deeply personal experiential argument for God. It's the only solid argument that exists.
You just changed the premise totally, to another claim about god, not an argument for the origin of morality. And it is anything but solid, especially when described as vaguely as you have done. Why don't you give your experiential argument, specifically? So it can be addressed specifically?
No, I didn't. You said there's no proof for God and so no one can interact with it. I said there is proof for God that exists for every believer, but it's experiential. As I mentioned in another thread there are philosophers who are religious who have done their best to get to a proof for God from argument, but they can only get close not all the way there. That is also true of a proof for God not existing, though.
And I can't describe the experience of God that every believer has, because they are all different. Also they are not logical arguments, nor can they be. They are an utterly different category of understanding. It's like C. S. Lewis said, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” I don't expect that argument to convince anyone unless they too have been there, because that's not the kind of argument it is.
Sigh... yes you DID, but ok, you want to switch from the origin of morality back to the existence of god. And you claim everyone has experiential evidence but won't provide your own when asked. You commit an beyond an argument from authority fallacy with CS Lewis as if that should matter. And you claim the arguments are illogical and in a "different category of understanding" (whatever the hell that is). Yet you claim to understand it logically and in fact think everyone should design their lives around it....
Does not seem like you are interested in a true engagement on the facts. Can't say I blame you. But I'll try again.
What is YOUR experiential argument?
Here's why I didn't want to engage - if I give you my experiential argument, you'll just try and tell me all the reasons it wasn't God I was experiencing. And honestly, that seems exhausting to me because right now I want to believe in God. And also I don't think my experience should be persuading you to believe in God. I've heard some totally crazy experiential arguments that I found fun and compelling, but mine is boring and mundane. And even the compelling ones are not a logical proof God exists, because as we both agree that cannot exist.
I wish you the best on your spiritual journey, but DCUM is probably not the best place for serious religious contemplation.
Anonymous wrote:They want to change your mind and make sure to take people away from their God. It's pretty evil in my opinion.
That's because you are brainwashed, and you do not realize the hard your beliefs are doing to the world (and have for a long time).
Open your eyes and see that there is insufficient evidence to believe there is a god - certainly not to the point where you need to enforce these crazy bronze-age beliefs on others through public policy and societal pressures. That is TRUE evil. REAL evil. Evil that you put on REAL humans EVERY DAY.
And you aren't using public policy and societal pressures to enforce your beliefs? Ask yourself - if you moved to a country where Sharia law was in effect, or a community governed by Orthodox Jews or the left's favorite hated Christian nationalists, would you try to make change? And do you think some people would - gasp - disagree?
Yes. Because my beliefs are better and more moral than yours, as well as being reinforced by the US constitution.
More moral by what standard? What sets the objective outside standard for you?
And as far as the bolded, the constitution places limits on what the federal government can do regarding free assembly, free speech, freedom of religious exercise and the like. It absolutely doesn't prioritize non-belief over belief. In fact it's there to say the government may not do that, just like they may not decide Anglicans or the Bahai Faith are the true religion of the US.
Why would I possibly need anyone to set a standard outside of my own morality? That's nonsense.
And I disagree with you on what the constitution says. It says no established religion, which means you can't make policy based on xtianity or any other equally BS myth. But that is happening.
You said "more moral." I asked "by what standard." You said "me."
So you're now the arbiter of morality?
The irony exhibited in your statement, when your hole ethos is based on the idea that you know what behavior is required or else you will suffer hell for eternity, is so far off the charts I cannot reply to it. You have exactly 0% self-awareness.
I'll put it this way: if you believe in the things endorsed in the bible (slavery, murder, infanticide, incest, persecution of homosexuals, denial of bodily autonomy, the list goes on and on), my morality is way, way superior to yours. Without question.
And yet the Nazis, per the account of Ellie Wiesel, also thought they were more moral than others.
Yet they were people like us. Part of the internal anguish in examining the Holocaust comes from wondering whether we actually could do what they did. Some claim the Nazis were completely psychopathic. Others disagree, like Elie Wiesel who wrote that, "They did not think that what they were doing was wrong. They were convinced that what they did was good" [11]. They thought they were doing what was best for humanity, or at least for their Volk. Then and now, the same questions were asked. "Who shall live and who shall die? And, Who belongs to the community entitled to our protection? Then and now, the subject at hand is killing, and letting die, and helping to die, and using the dead" [12]. Then and now, similar arguments based on similar worldviews were used to justify controversial practices.
My point is simply that whenever individual humans or small groups of humans are the arbiter of morality, you can get to some really dark and scary places within a few years, or decades. Isn't that exactly what people are worried about with the Trump administration? And yet your argument is "but my way is superior just because it is!" That's not actually one of the rational arguments many other atheists on this forum claim for their side, because it has no argument or reason associated with it, but gut feeling.
If you said, like some, that careful consideration of the natural world grounded your morality that would be an argument. Or if you said like others than humanity agreed on a set of goals and ethics and reasoned out morality from there, that would be an argument (one I have seen on this forum). But to just declare the self-evident superiority of your morality over the morality of all religions everywhere (and to lump them together is ridiculous, BTW) is not an argument.
So you don't think your morality is superior to the Nazi's? I bet you do, and I bet it is. So you do the same thing.
I am sure mine is.
As I am sure it is better that the morality in the bible as described above.
As you are well aware, we are going to 100% differ on where our starting point for an argument is. I think an outside standard (God) determines morality. You have yet to seriously interact with any of the arguments for external moral standards.
Based on the system of argument through which I see the world it does not matter what I think about a moral code. Based on your system, that's all that matters. My point is - when you leave it up to individuals, you aren't guarateed a good outcome. But you haven't interacted with that argument at all either.
Since there is zero evidence for the supernatural, there is no reason to "interact" with any theory of morality based on that. For the sake of argument, how would that even work?
As you should be well aware if you are on a religion forum, every person who truly believes in God will have a deeply personal experiential argument for God. It's the only solid argument that exists.
You just changed the premise totally, to another claim about god, not an argument for the origin of morality. And it is anything but solid, especially when described as vaguely as you have done. Why don't you give your experiential argument, specifically? So it can be addressed specifically?
No, I didn't. You said there's no proof for God and so no one can interact with it. I said there is proof for God that exists for every believer, but it's experiential. As I mentioned in another thread there are philosophers who are religious who have done their best to get to a proof for God from argument, but they can only get close not all the way there. That is also true of a proof for God not existing, though.
And I can't describe the experience of God that every believer has, because they are all different. Also they are not logical arguments, nor can they be. They are an utterly different category of understanding. It's like C. S. Lewis said, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” I don't expect that argument to convince anyone unless they too have been there, because that's not the kind of argument it is.
Sigh... yes you DID, but ok, you want to switch from the origin of morality back to the existence of god. And you claim everyone has experiential evidence but won't provide your own when asked. You commit an beyond an argument from authority fallacy with CS Lewis as if that should matter. And you claim the arguments are illogical and in a "different category of understanding" (whatever the hell that is). Yet you claim to understand it logically and in fact think everyone should design their lives around it....
Does not seem like you are interested in a true engagement on the facts. Can't say I blame you. But I'll try again.
What is YOUR experiential argument?
Here's why I didn't want to engage - if I give you my experiential argument, you'll just try and tell me all the reasons it wasn't God I was experiencing. And honestly, that seems exhausting to me because right now I want to believe in God. And also I don't think my experience should be persuading you to believe in God. I've heard some totally crazy experiential arguments that I found fun and compelling, but mine is boring and mundane. And even the compelling ones are not a logical proof God exists, because as we both agree that cannot exist.
Are you afraid that if you bring your experience out into the open, that once light is shone upon it, that it will lose its brilliance and you will see that its just something dull? You said it yourself that you "want" to believe. You are expressing fear of losing that belief if exposed to criticism.
No, it wouldn't lose it's brilliance at all. But it's also something precious to me, and would you subject something precious to you to every troll on DCUM? If you would, I'd argue that you are at a minimum a glutton for punishment. DCUM is a harsh, harsh place.
DP says: total BS. If it were so precious, you'd want to share it with all the trolls on dcum so they would believe again.
No, I bet that you're more concerned that the atheists on dcum would tear it apart logically. And you probably consider yourself to be very logical - even when it comes to religion.
Maybe when you get away from here a while and stop arguing so much, you'll realize that you've become an atheist yourself -- because of this conversation on dcum.
You've certainly made a case for atheism, for people listening in.
Anonymous wrote:Morality stems from a combination of factors, including evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), cultural and societal norms, and personal conscience. It is shaped by our innate sense of empathy and fairness, as well as by philosophical reasoning and the social agreements we make to live harmoniously. Essentially, morality is both a product of our nature and environment, helping individuals and societies navigate what is considered right or wrong.
+1
lol.
And where exactly do cultural and societal norms come from?
There are tons of ethical concepts that are in direct opposition to evolution biology. What is your explanation for this?
Typical. Which part of "combination" do you not understand?
You asserted several factors and I am challenging them both.
What is your response? Or do you not have one?
DP - your argument is stupid. Something has multiple contributing factors and you want them to explain things as if there were only one factor? That's not PP's position.
WTF dude can you at least try?
Both are severely problematic and you offered zero mitigating support for how the issues are magically resolved by virtue of being multiple.
So many lack the intellectual capacity to support their assertions and claims at the most basic level.
You claim that morality stems from evolutionary biology and yet when the multitudes of problems with this claim is brought up, offer zero mitigation.
Anonymous wrote:They want to change your mind and make sure to take people away from their God. It's pretty evil in my opinion.
That's because you are brainwashed, and you do not realize the hard your beliefs are doing to the world (and have for a long time).
Open your eyes and see that there is insufficient evidence to believe there is a god - certainly not to the point where you need to enforce these crazy bronze-age beliefs on others through public policy and societal pressures. That is TRUE evil. REAL evil. Evil that you put on REAL humans EVERY DAY.
And you aren't using public policy and societal pressures to enforce your beliefs? Ask yourself - if you moved to a country where Sharia law was in effect, or a community governed by Orthodox Jews or the left's favorite hated Christian nationalists, would you try to make change? And do you think some people would - gasp - disagree?
Yes. Because my beliefs are better and more moral than yours, as well as being reinforced by the US constitution.
More moral by what standard? What sets the objective outside standard for you?
And as far as the bolded, the constitution places limits on what the federal government can do regarding free assembly, free speech, freedom of religious exercise and the like. It absolutely doesn't prioritize non-belief over belief. In fact it's there to say the government may not do that, just like they may not decide Anglicans or the Bahai Faith are the true religion of the US.
Why would I possibly need anyone to set a standard outside of my own morality? That's nonsense.
And I disagree with you on what the constitution says. It says no established religion, which means you can't make policy based on xtianity or any other equally BS myth. But that is happening.
You said "more moral." I asked "by what standard." You said "me."
So you're now the arbiter of morality?
The irony exhibited in your statement, when your hole ethos is based on the idea that you know what behavior is required or else you will suffer hell for eternity, is so far off the charts I cannot reply to it. You have exactly 0% self-awareness.
I'll put it this way: if you believe in the things endorsed in the bible (slavery, murder, infanticide, incest, persecution of homosexuals, denial of bodily autonomy, the list goes on and on), my morality is way, way superior to yours. Without question.
And yet the Nazis, per the account of Ellie Wiesel, also thought they were more moral than others.
Yet they were people like us. Part of the internal anguish in examining the Holocaust comes from wondering whether we actually could do what they did. Some claim the Nazis were completely psychopathic. Others disagree, like Elie Wiesel who wrote that, "They did not think that what they were doing was wrong. They were convinced that what they did was good" [11]. They thought they were doing what was best for humanity, or at least for their Volk. Then and now, the same questions were asked. "Who shall live and who shall die? And, Who belongs to the community entitled to our protection? Then and now, the subject at hand is killing, and letting die, and helping to die, and using the dead" [12]. Then and now, similar arguments based on similar worldviews were used to justify controversial practices.
My point is simply that whenever individual humans or small groups of humans are the arbiter of morality, you can get to some really dark and scary places within a few years, or decades. Isn't that exactly what people are worried about with the Trump administration? And yet your argument is "but my way is superior just because it is!" That's not actually one of the rational arguments many other atheists on this forum claim for their side, because it has no argument or reason associated with it, but gut feeling.
If you said, like some, that careful consideration of the natural world grounded your morality that would be an argument. Or if you said like others than humanity agreed on a set of goals and ethics and reasoned out morality from there, that would be an argument (one I have seen on this forum). But to just declare the self-evident superiority of your morality over the morality of all religions everywhere (and to lump them together is ridiculous, BTW) is not an argument.
So you don't think your morality is superior to the Nazi's? I bet you do, and I bet it is. So you do the same thing.
I am sure mine is.
As I am sure it is better that the morality in the bible as described above.
As you are well aware, we are going to 100% differ on where our starting point for an argument is. I think an outside standard (God) determines morality. You have yet to seriously interact with any of the arguments for external moral standards.
Based on the system of argument through which I see the world it does not matter what I think about a moral code. Based on your system, that's all that matters. My point is - when you leave it up to individuals, you aren't guarateed a good outcome. But you haven't interacted with that argument at all either.
Since there is zero evidence for the supernatural, there is no reason to "interact" with any theory of morality based on that. For the sake of argument, how would that even work?
As you should be well aware if you are on a religion forum, every person who truly believes in God will have a deeply personal experiential argument for God. It's the only solid argument that exists.
You just changed the premise totally, to another claim about god, not an argument for the origin of morality. And it is anything but solid, especially when described as vaguely as you have done. Why don't you give your experiential argument, specifically? So it can be addressed specifically?
No, I didn't. You said there's no proof for God and so no one can interact with it. I said there is proof for God that exists for every believer, but it's experiential. As I mentioned in another thread there are philosophers who are religious who have done their best to get to a proof for God from argument, but they can only get close not all the way there. That is also true of a proof for God not existing, though.
And I can't describe the experience of God that every believer has, because they are all different. Also they are not logical arguments, nor can they be. They are an utterly different category of understanding. It's like C. S. Lewis said, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” I don't expect that argument to convince anyone unless they too have been there, because that's not the kind of argument it is.
Sigh... yes you DID, but ok, you want to switch from the origin of morality back to the existence of god. And you claim everyone has experiential evidence but won't provide your own when asked. You commit an beyond an argument from authority fallacy with CS Lewis as if that should matter. And you claim the arguments are illogical and in a "different category of understanding" (whatever the hell that is). Yet you claim to understand it logically and in fact think everyone should design their lives around it....
Does not seem like you are interested in a true engagement on the facts. Can't say I blame you. But I'll try again.
What is YOUR experiential argument?
Here's why I didn't want to engage - if I give you my experiential argument, you'll just try and tell me all the reasons it wasn't God I was experiencing. And honestly, that seems exhausting to me because right now I want to believe in God. And also I don't think my experience should be persuading you to believe in God. I've heard some totally crazy experiential arguments that I found fun and compelling, but mine is boring and mundane. And even the compelling ones are not a logical proof God exists, because as we both agree that cannot exist.
I wish you the best on your spiritual journey, but DCUM is probably not the best place for serious religious contemplation.
I think DCUM is a great place for serious religious contemplation, especially if you're curious about nonbelief, which so many people are these days.
Anonymous wrote:They want to change your mind and make sure to take people away from their God. It's pretty evil in my opinion.
That's because you are brainwashed, and you do not realize the hard your beliefs are doing to the world (and have for a long time).
Open your eyes and see that there is insufficient evidence to believe there is a god - certainly not to the point where you need to enforce these crazy bronze-age beliefs on others through public policy and societal pressures. That is TRUE evil. REAL evil. Evil that you put on REAL humans EVERY DAY.
And you aren't using public policy and societal pressures to enforce your beliefs? Ask yourself - if you moved to a country where Sharia law was in effect, or a community governed by Orthodox Jews or the left's favorite hated Christian nationalists, would you try to make change? And do you think some people would - gasp - disagree?
Yes. Because my beliefs are better and more moral than yours, as well as being reinforced by the US constitution.
More moral by what standard? What sets the objective outside standard for you?
And as far as the bolded, the constitution places limits on what the federal government can do regarding free assembly, free speech, freedom of religious exercise and the like. It absolutely doesn't prioritize non-belief over belief. In fact it's there to say the government may not do that, just like they may not decide Anglicans or the Bahai Faith are the true religion of the US.
Why would I possibly need anyone to set a standard outside of my own morality? That's nonsense.
And I disagree with you on what the constitution says. It says no established religion, which means you can't make policy based on xtianity or any other equally BS myth. But that is happening.
You said "more moral." I asked "by what standard." You said "me."
So you're now the arbiter of morality?
The irony exhibited in your statement, when your hole ethos is based on the idea that you know what behavior is required or else you will suffer hell for eternity, is so far off the charts I cannot reply to it. You have exactly 0% self-awareness.
I'll put it this way: if you believe in the things endorsed in the bible (slavery, murder, infanticide, incest, persecution of homosexuals, denial of bodily autonomy, the list goes on and on), my morality is way, way superior to yours. Without question.
And yet the Nazis, per the account of Ellie Wiesel, also thought they were more moral than others.
Yet they were people like us. Part of the internal anguish in examining the Holocaust comes from wondering whether we actually could do what they did. Some claim the Nazis were completely psychopathic. Others disagree, like Elie Wiesel who wrote that, "They did not think that what they were doing was wrong. They were convinced that what they did was good" [11]. They thought they were doing what was best for humanity, or at least for their Volk. Then and now, the same questions were asked. "Who shall live and who shall die? And, Who belongs to the community entitled to our protection? Then and now, the subject at hand is killing, and letting die, and helping to die, and using the dead" [12]. Then and now, similar arguments based on similar worldviews were used to justify controversial practices.
My point is simply that whenever individual humans or small groups of humans are the arbiter of morality, you can get to some really dark and scary places within a few years, or decades. Isn't that exactly what people are worried about with the Trump administration? And yet your argument is "but my way is superior just because it is!" That's not actually one of the rational arguments many other atheists on this forum claim for their side, because it has no argument or reason associated with it, but gut feeling.
If you said, like some, that careful consideration of the natural world grounded your morality that would be an argument. Or if you said like others than humanity agreed on a set of goals and ethics and reasoned out morality from there, that would be an argument (one I have seen on this forum). But to just declare the self-evident superiority of your morality over the morality of all religions everywhere (and to lump them together is ridiculous, BTW) is not an argument.
So you don't think your morality is superior to the Nazi's? I bet you do, and I bet it is. So you do the same thing.
I am sure mine is.
As I am sure it is better that the morality in the bible as described above.
As you are well aware, we are going to 100% differ on where our starting point for an argument is. I think an outside standard (God) determines morality. You have yet to seriously interact with any of the arguments for external moral standards.
Based on the system of argument through which I see the world it does not matter what I think about a moral code. Based on your system, that's all that matters. My point is - when you leave it up to individuals, you aren't guarateed a good outcome. But you haven't interacted with that argument at all either.
Since there is zero evidence for the supernatural, there is no reason to "interact" with any theory of morality based on that. For the sake of argument, how would that even work?
As you should be well aware if you are on a religion forum, every person who truly believes in God will have a deeply personal experiential argument for God. It's the only solid argument that exists.
You just changed the premise totally, to another claim about god, not an argument for the origin of morality. And it is anything but solid, especially when described as vaguely as you have done. Why don't you give your experiential argument, specifically? So it can be addressed specifically?
No, I didn't. You said there's no proof for God and so no one can interact with it. I said there is proof for God that exists for every believer, but it's experiential. As I mentioned in another thread there are philosophers who are religious who have done their best to get to a proof for God from argument, but they can only get close not all the way there. That is also true of a proof for God not existing, though.
And I can't describe the experience of God that every believer has, because they are all different. Also they are not logical arguments, nor can they be. They are an utterly different category of understanding. It's like C. S. Lewis said, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” I don't expect that argument to convince anyone unless they too have been there, because that's not the kind of argument it is.
Sigh... yes you DID, but ok, you want to switch from the origin of morality back to the existence of god. And you claim everyone has experiential evidence but won't provide your own when asked. You commit an beyond an argument from authority fallacy with CS Lewis as if that should matter. And you claim the arguments are illogical and in a "different category of understanding" (whatever the hell that is). Yet you claim to understand it logically and in fact think everyone should design their lives around it....
Does not seem like you are interested in a true engagement on the facts. Can't say I blame you. But I'll try again.
What is YOUR experiential argument?
Here's why I didn't want to engage - if I give you my experiential argument, you'll just try and tell me all the reasons it wasn't God I was experiencing. And honestly, that seems exhausting to me because right now I want to believe in God. And also I don't think my experience should be persuading you to believe in God. I've heard some totally crazy experiential arguments that I found fun and compelling, but mine is boring and mundane. And even the compelling ones are not a logical proof God exists, because as we both agree that cannot exist.
I wish you the best on your spiritual journey, but DCUM is probably not the best place for serious religious contemplation.
I think DCUM is a great place for serious religious contemplation, especially if you're curious about nonbelief, which so many people are these days.
To each their own.
PP would be better served by watching a few Hitchens lectures and picking up a copy of “the god delusion”.
But if they want their opinions to be shaped by anonymous rubes on DCUM, so be it.
Anonymous wrote:Morality stems from a combination of factors, including evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), cultural and societal norms, and personal conscience. It is shaped by our innate sense of empathy and fairness, as well as by philosophical reasoning and the social agreements we make to live harmoniously. Essentially, morality is both a product of our nature and environment, helping individuals and societies navigate what is considered right or wrong.
+1
lol.
And where exactly do cultural and societal norms come from?
There are tons of ethical concepts that are in direct opposition to evolution biology. What is your explanation for this?
Typical. Which part of "combination" do you not understand?
You asserted several factors and I am challenging them both.
What is your response? Or do you not have one?
DP - your argument is stupid. Something has multiple contributing factors and you want them to explain things as if there were only one factor? That's not PP's position.
WTF dude can you at least try?
Both are severely problematic and you offered zero mitigating support for how the issues are magically resolved by virtue of being multiple.
So many lack the intellectual capacity to support their assertions and claims at the most basic level.
You claim that morality stems from evolutionary biology and yet when the multitudes of problems with this claim is brought up, offer zero mitigation.
Please be serious.
I will shout this, because maybe the third time you will hear it.
PP DID NOT SAY EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY WAS WHERE MORALITY STEMS FROM.
PP SAY IT WAS SHAPED FROM A COMBINATION OF FACTORS (let's count!) , including 1. evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), 2. cultural and societal norms, and 3. personal conscience.
GOT IT NOW?
SOMEHOW I BET YOU DON'T.
If you have any basis for morality that can't be explained by these things, let's discuss. I do, of course: religious basis. That is how you get people to burn people as witches, mutilate the genitalia of young women, deny women their bodily autonomy, deny LGBT people basic human rights, and fly planes into populated office buildings.
Anonymous wrote:Morality stems from a combination of factors, including evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), cultural and societal norms, and personal conscience. It is shaped by our innate sense of empathy and fairness, as well as by philosophical reasoning and the social agreements we make to live harmoniously. Essentially, morality is both a product of our nature and environment, helping individuals and societies navigate what is considered right or wrong.
+1
lol.
And where exactly do cultural and societal norms come from?
There are tons of ethical concepts that are in direct opposition to evolution biology. What is your explanation for this?
Typical. Which part of "combination" do you not understand?
You asserted several factors and I am challenging them both.
What is your response? Or do you not have one?
DP - your argument is stupid. Something has multiple contributing factors and you want them to explain things as if there were only one factor? That's not PP's position.
WTF dude can you at least try?
Both are severely problematic and you offered zero mitigating support for how the issues are magically resolved by virtue of being multiple.
So many lack the intellectual capacity to support their assertions and claims at the most basic level.
You claim that morality stems from evolutionary biology and yet when the multitudes of problems with this claim is brought up, offer zero mitigation.
Please be serious.
I will shout this, because maybe the third time you will hear it.
PP DID NOT SAY EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY WAS WHERE MORALITY STEMS FROM.
PP SAY IT WAS SHAPED FROM A COMBINATION OF FACTORS (let's count!) , including 1. evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), 2. cultural and societal norms, and 3. personal conscience.
GOT IT NOW?
SOMEHOW I BET YOU DON'T.
If you have any basis for morality that can't be explained by these things, let's discuss. I do, of course: religious basis. That is how you get people to burn people as witches, mutilate the genitalia of young women, deny women their bodily autonomy, deny LGBT people basic human rights, and fly planes into populated office buildings.
So unserious.
I rejected all three explanations as problematic.
And you can’t defend any of them, alone or together.
Anonymous wrote:They want to change your mind and make sure to take people away from their God. It's pretty evil in my opinion.
That's because you are brainwashed, and you do not realize the hard your beliefs are doing to the world (and have for a long time).
Open your eyes and see that there is insufficient evidence to believe there is a god - certainly not to the point where you need to enforce these crazy bronze-age beliefs on others through public policy and societal pressures. That is TRUE evil. REAL evil. Evil that you put on REAL humans EVERY DAY.
And you aren't using public policy and societal pressures to enforce your beliefs? Ask yourself - if you moved to a country where Sharia law was in effect, or a community governed by Orthodox Jews or the left's favorite hated Christian nationalists, would you try to make change? And do you think some people would - gasp - disagree?
Yes. Because my beliefs are better and more moral than yours, as well as being reinforced by the US constitution.
More moral by what standard? What sets the objective outside standard for you?
And as far as the bolded, the constitution places limits on what the federal government can do regarding free assembly, free speech, freedom of religious exercise and the like. It absolutely doesn't prioritize non-belief over belief. In fact it's there to say the government may not do that, just like they may not decide Anglicans or the Bahai Faith are the true religion of the US.
Why would I possibly need anyone to set a standard outside of my own morality? That's nonsense.
And I disagree with you on what the constitution says. It says no established religion, which means you can't make policy based on xtianity or any other equally BS myth. But that is happening.
You said "more moral." I asked "by what standard." You said "me."
So you're now the arbiter of morality?
The irony exhibited in your statement, when your hole ethos is based on the idea that you know what behavior is required or else you will suffer hell for eternity, is so far off the charts I cannot reply to it. You have exactly 0% self-awareness.
I'll put it this way: if you believe in the things endorsed in the bible (slavery, murder, infanticide, incest, persecution of homosexuals, denial of bodily autonomy, the list goes on and on), my morality is way, way superior to yours. Without question.
And yet the Nazis, per the account of Ellie Wiesel, also thought they were more moral than others.
Yet they were people like us. Part of the internal anguish in examining the Holocaust comes from wondering whether we actually could do what they did. Some claim the Nazis were completely psychopathic. Others disagree, like Elie Wiesel who wrote that, "They did not think that what they were doing was wrong. They were convinced that what they did was good" [11]. They thought they were doing what was best for humanity, or at least for their Volk. Then and now, the same questions were asked. "Who shall live and who shall die? And, Who belongs to the community entitled to our protection? Then and now, the subject at hand is killing, and letting die, and helping to die, and using the dead" [12]. Then and now, similar arguments based on similar worldviews were used to justify controversial practices.
My point is simply that whenever individual humans or small groups of humans are the arbiter of morality, you can get to some really dark and scary places within a few years, or decades. Isn't that exactly what people are worried about with the Trump administration? And yet your argument is "but my way is superior just because it is!" That's not actually one of the rational arguments many other atheists on this forum claim for their side, because it has no argument or reason associated with it, but gut feeling.
If you said, like some, that careful consideration of the natural world grounded your morality that would be an argument. Or if you said like others than humanity agreed on a set of goals and ethics and reasoned out morality from there, that would be an argument (one I have seen on this forum). But to just declare the self-evident superiority of your morality over the morality of all religions everywhere (and to lump them together is ridiculous, BTW) is not an argument.
So you don't think your morality is superior to the Nazi's? I bet you do, and I bet it is. So you do the same thing.
I am sure mine is.
As I am sure it is better that the morality in the bible as described above.
As you are well aware, we are going to 100% differ on where our starting point for an argument is. I think an outside standard (God) determines morality. You have yet to seriously interact with any of the arguments for external moral standards.
Based on the system of argument through which I see the world it does not matter what I think about a moral code. Based on your system, that's all that matters. My point is - when you leave it up to individuals, you aren't guarateed a good outcome. But you haven't interacted with that argument at all either.
Since there is zero evidence for the supernatural, there is no reason to "interact" with any theory of morality based on that. For the sake of argument, how would that even work?
As you should be well aware if you are on a religion forum, every person who truly believes in God will have a deeply personal experiential argument for God. It's the only solid argument that exists.
You just changed the premise totally, to another claim about god, not an argument for the origin of morality. And it is anything but solid, especially when described as vaguely as you have done. Why don't you give your experiential argument, specifically? So it can be addressed specifically?
No, I didn't. You said there's no proof for God and so no one can interact with it. I said there is proof for God that exists for every believer, but it's experiential. As I mentioned in another thread there are philosophers who are religious who have done their best to get to a proof for God from argument, but they can only get close not all the way there. That is also true of a proof for God not existing, though.
And I can't describe the experience of God that every believer has, because they are all different. Also they are not logical arguments, nor can they be. They are an utterly different category of understanding. It's like C. S. Lewis said, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” I don't expect that argument to convince anyone unless they too have been there, because that's not the kind of argument it is.
Sigh... yes you DID, but ok, you want to switch from the origin of morality back to the existence of god. And you claim everyone has experiential evidence but won't provide your own when asked. You commit an beyond an argument from authority fallacy with CS Lewis as if that should matter. And you claim the arguments are illogical and in a "different category of understanding" (whatever the hell that is). Yet you claim to understand it logically and in fact think everyone should design their lives around it....
Does not seem like you are interested in a true engagement on the facts. Can't say I blame you. But I'll try again.
What is YOUR experiential argument?
Here's why I didn't want to engage - if I give you my experiential argument, you'll just try and tell me all the reasons it wasn't God I was experiencing. And honestly, that seems exhausting to me because right now I want to believe in God. And also I don't think my experience should be persuading you to believe in God. I've heard some totally crazy experiential arguments that I found fun and compelling, but mine is boring and mundane. And even the compelling ones are not a logical proof God exists, because as we both agree that cannot exist.
I wish you the best on your spiritual journey, but DCUM is probably not the best place for serious religious contemplation.
I think DCUM is a great place for serious religious contemplation, especially if you're curious about nonbelief, which so many people are these days.
To each their own.
PP would be better served by watching a few Hitchens lectures and picking up a copy of “the god delusion”.
But if they want their opinions to be shaped by anonymous rubes on DCUM, so be it.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}