Morality

108 posts / 0 new
Last post
Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

"There is no good evidence for any God."That is opinion or a faith claim.

As we have been through this before, I have demonstrated that there is (currently) no contemporary evidence for the existence of your Jesus figure (god), none.

You CHOOSE to believe in this figure despite the evidence for the jesus figure as described in the gospels, and that you worship, being non existent except for the much later, fantastic assertions, in the texts that form the claims. That, even you must admit Jo is "no good evidence"

Cognostic is perfectly correct in the description for your jesus-god..."There is no good evidence for (any) god"

You wouldn't like a traffic ticket based on hearsay in stories told 50 years after the event, and a living god wandering about is a whole lot more important than that, and has a greater burden of evidence.

That is not a faith claim Jo, that is fact. A currency you seem woefully short on.

Please don't try and conflate the existence of a human jesus figure (which also has no evidence at all, only a historiographic probability) with divine, magical jesus described in your texts.

Live in truth Jo, deal in facts.

Cognostic's picture
@Jo: RE: How do you know

@Jo: RE: How do you know that? I simply trust what Jim Jones said and the actions that followed. To not believe Jones was a real Christian following the guidance of the Christian God is to fall into the "No True Scotsman Fallacy."

@Jo: RE: "How has science checked" Simple, it tests all god claims; miracles, the power of prayer, the laying on of hands, talking in tongues, the handling of snakes, and more. Any time a religious claim has an effect in the real world, it can be tested. (We will get to absence of evidence next.) At no point has any miraculous claim stood against science and skepticism.

@Jo: RE: "Absence of evidence is an argument from ignorance. " You obviously do not understand the "Argument from Ignorance Fallacy." The fallacy states "Something is true because it has not yet been proved false." EX: God exists because you can not prove he does not exist.

I have asserted "There is no evidence for god." I have asserted "Absence of evidence is in fact evidence of absence." This is scientifically and logically sound. Were this not the case, scientists would be stuck doing the very same experiments over and over and over again while expecting different results. The fact is, we can come up with a hypothesis, conduct an experiment, and then state that our hypothesis was not proved by the experiment. There is no reason to continue doing the same experiment a thousand times over.

Hypothesis: God exists.
How do we know this? Pick a measurable influence god has on the world. "Prayer Works."
What kind of prayer and how.
Intercessory prayer in cancer wards. Praying for others will help them to recover more quickly.

Hypothesis: God exists because praying for other will help them to recover from cancer.
Experiment: Conducted by PEW Research.
Hypothesis rejected. It was found that people who knew they were being prayed for did far worse than people that did not receive prayer.

We can reject the hypothesis that god exists based on intercessory prayer.

There are thousands of times theological claims have been debunked and thus demonstrated the God hypothesis failed once again.

_________________
Go back to the Bear Cave Analogy: This has been clearly explained. 10,000 years with no evidence at all that can stand against critical inquiry IS IN FACT "EVIDENCE" for the non-existence of your God Thing.

@Jo: RE: "There is no evidence for any god." That is a factual statement. If you think you have some valid, empirical evidence that can stand up to skeptical inquiry, please post it. We would all love to hear what you have beyond your personal delusions and blind assertions.

David Killens's picture
Jo, I have previously

Jo, I have previously mentioned that one aspect of science can be to just follow the evidence.

There is a god claim, OK, let us put this claim to the test. What evidence can we follow in pursuit of this claim? As Cog has laid out, prayer. But that does not work.

Yes, that does not disprove a god. But it sure makes an emphatic statement as to the odds and probabilities a god exists.

In your faith you have been burdened by your religious leaders stating that god cannot be examined, or proven. I do not live under this imposed limitation, because to put it simply, I believe if a god exists, it can, and should be examined in every way possible.

Cognostic's picture
@Jo: RE: How do you know

@Jo: RE: How do you know that? I simply trust what Jim Jones said and the actions that followed. To not believe Jones was a real Christian following the guidance of the Christian God is to fall into the "No True Scotsman Fallacy."

@Jo: RE: "How has science checked" Simple, it tests all god claims; miracles, the power of prayer, the laying on of hands, talking in tongues, the handling of snakes, and more. Any time a religious claim has an effect in the real world, it can be tested. (We will get to absence of evidence next.) At no point has any miraculous claim stood against science and skepticism.

@Jo: RE: "Absence of evidence is an argument from ignorance. " You obviously do not understand the "Argument from Ignorance Fallacy." The fallacy states "Something is true because it has not yet been proved false." EX: God exists because you can not prove he does not exist.

I have asserted "There is no evidence for god." I have asserted "Absence of evidence is in fact evidence of absence." This is scientifically and logically sound. Were this not the case, scientists would be stuck doing the very same experiments over and over and over again while expecting different results. The fact is, we can come up with a hypothesis, conduct an experiment, and then state that our hypothesis was not proved by the experiment. There is no reason to continue doing the same experiment a thousand times over.

Hypothesis: God exists.
How do we know this? Pick a measurable influence god has on the world. "Prayer Works."
What kind of prayer and how.
Intercessory prayer in cancer wards. Praying for others will help them to recover more quickly.

Hypothesis: God exists because praying for other will help them to recover from cancer.
Experiment: Conducted by PEW Research.
Hypothesis rejected. It was found that people who knew they were being prayed for did far worse than people that did not receive prayer.

We can reject the hypothesis that god exists based on intercessory prayer.

There are thousands of times theological claims have been debunked and thus demonstrated the God hypothesis failed once again.

_________________
Go back to the Bear Cave Analogy: This has been clearly explained. 10,000 years with no evidence at all that can stand against critical inquiry IS IN FACT "EVIDENCE" for the non-existence of your God Thing.

@Jo: RE: "There is no evidence for any god." That is a factual statement. If you think you have some valid, empirical evidence that can stand up to skeptical inquiry, please post it. We would all love to hear what you have beyond your personal delusions and blind assertions.

Jo's picture
@ Cognostic

@ Cognostic

I hope I am not to late in replying to your post.
"Any time a religious claim has an effect in the real world, it can be tested."
"At no point has any miraculous claim stood against science and skepticism."
You are making an extraordinary claims, but provide no extraordinary evidence.

The first one is clearly false. I am referring to claims that do have an effect in the real world.
If I had a bottle of the water that was turned into wine, and a sample of the wine. How would you test it?
What would you expect to find if it had happened as stated in the Bible?
Jesus rose from the dead. How do you test for that? Can you produce the body?
You can appeal to skepticism, but you are still just giving an opinion or belief.
Skepticism is not evidence. Nor is it a test. Just a way of thinking.
You could use skepticism to say "that we can know little or nothing about the big question in life, such as whether God exists or whether there is an afterlife." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism

"@Jo: RE: "Absence of evidence is an argument from ignorance. " You obviously do not understand the "Argument from Ignorance Fallacy." The fallacy states "Something is true because it has not yet been proved false." EX: God exists because you can not prove he does not exist."
You left off the part that applies to your claims. "A premise is false because it has not (yet) been proven true."

Your bear cave analogy works great for bears and would work for Bigfoot. But not for God.
You get a false negative and use the false negative as evidence. That is not rational.
Can your bear cave test detect radio waves? Does that mean radio waves do not exist?

I keep coming back to the conclusion that you are essentially espousing scientism.
Can science answer the God question? You seem to be saying yes.
I have given a number of references previously on how science cannot answer the question.
Here are some more. I have included the quotes in case you do not have a subscription.
Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method, Prizewinning Physicist Says
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” and all that. This positions me very much against all of the “New Atheist” guys—even though I want my message to be respectful of people’s beliefs and reasoning, which might be community-based, or dignity-based, and so on
I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It’s a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief.
Which is why I get upset by misstatements, like when you have scientists—Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss among them—claiming we have solved the problem of the origin of the universe, or that string theory is correct and that the final “theory of everything” is at hand. Such statements are bogus. So, I feel as if I am a guardian for the integrity of science right now; someone you can trust because this person is open and honest enough to admit that the scientific enterprise has limitations—which doesn’t mean it’s weak! https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/atheism-is-inconsistent-with-...

Does anyone still believe that science can explain, well, everything?
Lately, I’ve begun to look at the vision of total knowledge as a laughable delusion, a pathological fantasy that should never have been taken seriously, even though brilliant scientists propagated it.
But the concept of scientific omniscience always suffered from fatal flaws. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/the-delusion-of-scienti...

But when scientists insist that they have solved, or will soon solve, all mysteries, including the biggest mystery of all, they do a disservice to science; they become the mirror images of the religious fundamentalists they despise. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/science-will-never-expl...

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

Jesus rose from the dead. How do you test for that? Can you produce the body?

Your claim, your burden of proof. Facts Jo: there are no contemporary accounts of anyone being raised from the dead. In fact the early christians did not think that either, that a Jesus figure was corporeally resurrected from the dead. The earliest christian writer some 30 years after the events does not mention it, in fact it isn't mentioned or taken as 'gospel' until the very late 1st century and the rest of the second century and even then arguments raged about 'spiritual' resurrection vs corporeal resurrection vs Ascension vs Adoption.
The complete ABSENCE of contemporary evidence for such an event and surrounding 'miracles', Jo; the inability for the religion to agree among themselves as to whether the even occurred, and of course the complete absence of evidence that such a phenomenon has ever occurred in the history of the human race ( excepting rare, documented, medical cases) all add up to an 'evidence of absence for that event.

Regarding your wine analogy, actually there are many tests that would determine whether wine is or was miraculous or not. Each grape harvest has a particular chemical signature. No need to tie yourself in pretzels Jo. If you claim your jesus figure changed water into wine without common 'magical' trickery it is testable. No scepticism needed.

Your break obviously didn't do your powers of critical thinking any good at all. I am not even going to bother to address any of your other remarks, where they are not exhibiting your panicked thought processes and lack of comprehension, they reinforce your pretzel shaped powers of reason.

Oh wait....is it opposite day? In which case your post makes good sense.

Sheldon's picture
@Jo

@Jo

It's just a list of the same tedious dishonest appeal to ignorance fallacies Jo, and despite you sulking at bring labelled dishonest, I will continue to point it out.

You rehash these tedious logical fallacies in the full knowledge you're ignoring them when they're pointed out.

You also know you can demonstrate not one shred of objective evidence for any deity. So it is has zero relevance to any rational discourse, that those who choose to disbelieve those unevidenced myths you're quoting, won't indulge your endless use if argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies.

No one needs to evidence your beliefs are false, that's what argumentum ad ignorantiam means. Each time you ignore this and repeat the fallacy I'll be here to point out your dishonesty .

David Killens's picture
@Jo

@Jo

"What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It’s a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief."

Now I am disappointed Jo, because on multiple instances you have been provided the definition of atheism. Now you are attempting to sway the conversation by twisting words around and re-defining a term.

Once again, ...... atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. Period, full stop, shut the fuck up.

"Which is why I get upset by misstatements, like when you have scientists—Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss among them—claiming we have solved the problem of the origin of the universe, or that string theory is correct and that the final “theory of everything” is at hand. Such statements are bogus."

Yes, those statements are bogus because they are not accurate. Hawking or Krauss, or any sane and respectable scientist will never categorically state they have the full answer. The best is they will offer the best explanation based on our present knowledge, with the understanding that new revelations may change all the answers.

"Does anyone still believe that science can explain, well, everything?"

Only fools and idiots. Science is just a process, but so far demonstrated to be the most reliable and effective method in discovering and describing phenomena. There are other disciplines, such as logic and philosophy that also offer explanations to other questions.

Sheldon's picture
Jo ""THAT'S WHY WE HAVE

Jo ""THAT'S WHY WE HAVE SCIENCE AND WHY WE FACT CHECK OUR PERCEPTIONS."
How does science check for Gods existence/nonexistence?
How can science test if God is inspiring me or not?"

Jo, this is yest another appeal to ignorance fallacy, science is not flawed because it cannot test for invisible unicorns, and the fact you find vapid unevidenced superstition inspiring tells us plenty about your thinking and reasoning process, but nothing about the validity of those absurdly biased beliefs.

Leper's picture
Cogcnostic's beliefs against

Cogcnostic's beliefs against the existence of God are also based on personal experience.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ leper

@ leper

And a complete lack of convincing evidence.

Cognostic's picture
@Leper: "Cogcnostic's

@Leper: "Cogcnostic's beliefs against the existence of God are also based on personal experience.:

You literally have no idea at all how to open your mouth without shoving your foot down your throat.

I have no belief at all against the existence of any god. What are you talking about. I do not believe in god or gods. If you think you have one and you want to present it, I will consider your god's reality. If your god is as stupid and ill formed as all the other gods I have had explained to me, it is not my fault you don't know what the hell you are talking about/ My beliefs about the existence of god or gods is based entirely on a complete lack of evidence as well as the lies, fallacious attempts at reasoning, and inane assertions of the theists. If you have to lie about it, why would I think it is real?

Sheldon's picture
Leper "Cogcnostic's beliefs

Leper "Cogcnostic's beliefs against the existence of God are also based on personal experience."

Atheism is not a belief.

Talyyn's picture
@Jo

@Jo

Didn't see your answer...It was the morning and i was coming back to own from a night of fun so... But
Cog and Old Man answered so...

Sheldon's picture
Jo "My knowledge of science

Jo "My knowledge of science points in the direction of God."

The scientific world, and the theistic world seem to have missed this "knowledge".

Jo "It seems like the most logical and objective answer to me."

You keep ignoring the logical fallacies in your arguments, time and time again, and you have stated from the start that you can demonstrate no objective evidence for any deity. Come on Jo, even you must see how desperately dishonest that claim is?

Jo's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

If God existed could objective evidence be given?
If he didn't could objective evidence be given for his non existence?

Sheldon's picture
Jo You made two claims, I

Jo You made two claims, I responded,, please have the integrity to address this and don't just fucking roll past it with more appeals to ignorance fallacies.

Jo "My knowledge of science points in the direction of God."

Sheldon "The scientific world, and the theistic world seem to have missed this "knowledge".

Jo "It seems like the most logical and objective answer to me."

Sheldon "You keep ignoring the logical fallacies in your arguments, time and time again, and you have stated from the start that you can demonstrate no objective evidence for any deity. Come on Jo, even you must see how desperately dishonest that claim is?

Show some fucking integrity Jo, you are not in a pulpit, this is a debate forum.

Get off my lawn's picture
I wouldn't go as far as

I wouldn't go as far as saying "death throes", but yes, we are indeed witnessing the start of a decline in religion. For the past hundred years or so, we have learned and found out so much about nature and the laws and regularities it follows/exhibits that we can explain a vast array of phenomena that in earlier times were attributed to a god or gods, as well as phenomena that noone in the ancient pre-scientific world even knew existed. Lightning? Not Thor or Zeus, but electrical discharges. Tsunamis, floods, etc? Not Poseidon or any other water gods, but the result of submarine earthquakes and weather. Droughts and bad harvests? Not caused by any angry gods, but a result of dynamic and chaotic weather patterns. And so on and so forth. We are literally watching the gods being squeezed into progressively narrower gaps as the science results keep coming in. And the space available for gods and supernatural beings is converging towards zero.

Further, history and bible research makes it more and more clear that this Jesus dude that so many people treat like a deity is in fact no more than literally a dead guy on a stick. The consensus among bible researchers seems to be that this Jesus guy was no more than a regular person from the boondocks of today's Israel that ended up as a relatively unknown (in his days) doomsday prophet. But sheer coincidence then made his particular doomsday cult end up "winning". Other historical researchers argue (quite convincingly, imo) that the whole Jesus affair is a myth, and that what today is Christianity started as a jewish doomsday cult that based their theology on manuscripts with similar ideas.

Religion and theology has contributed to exactly nil when it comes to actual knowledge about things that matter, i.e. the actual observable world we live in. No scientific breakthroughs or great inventions have ever been made as a result of religious scriptures. Religionists like to claim that their particular holy scriptures (the Torah, the Bible, the Quran, the Book of Mormon, the sci-fi of L. Ron Hubbard, etc.) is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, even when contradictions and factual errors are present on practically every page. They claim that there is no morality except what their particular kind of religion expresses. But they fail to mention (they "forget") that people had morals long before the current religions popped up in any recognizable form or shape, and that basic rules for moral behaviour (like no stealing, no killing, no maiming etc) exist all over the world, in societies that have lived in relative isolation for tens of thousands of years. Without the influence of these so-called "moral" religions. These rules just make sense for the survival of the family group/the village/the clan. No superstitious bullshit jesus-on-a-stick nonsense required.

Cognostic's picture
You are right on track.

You are right on track. Daniel Dennett has written volumes on the subject and has many YouTube videos available. Matt Dillahaunty argues on the superiority of secular morality and is a pleasure to listen to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq2C7fyVTA4

Richard Dawkins Destroys "Morality from God."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQtGwkD0xjY

Daniel Dennett is the Morality man of the hour and a great 'go to" for in depth discussions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BW2oq0AEk8&t=59s

chimp3's picture
Morals based on religious

Morals based on religious claims are still human morals. All religions and moral principles are human.

Sheldon's picture
chimp3 "Morals based on

chimp3 "Morals based on religious claims are still human morals. All religions and moral principles are human."

It always amazes me that theists don't see this simple fact.

JohnLFrazer's picture
Then there's the challenge

Then there's the challenge issued by Hitchens: think of an objectively good action done or stance taken, which only a believer could undertake, not an atheist or a non-believer.
He never had a good response.
Now the corollary: think of an objectively wicked thing, that would only occur to a theist, who would think it good - not a non-believer... You've already thought of one haven't you? Oh, there's another.

Randomhero1982's picture
I always loved that comment

I always loved that comment from Hitchens, beautiful articulated everytime I saw him use that in his vast arsenal of arguements.

Randomhero1982's picture
I further think that the

I further think that the mistake made by those whom argue for some sort of objective morality or divinely given morality, is the hang up on 'good' and 'evil'.

They are essentially just two polarising responses to a given situation.

What we could say is....

Action A elicits the response X.
Action B elicits the response Y.

What we then do is group those responses that are beneficial or non beneficial to the collective.

Perhaps this is why cheating is precariously sitting in the middle and why those that have cheated or gained an unfair advantage via some way often feel guilt and why those that have been cheated, tend to be upset.

And yet, it continues to happen as it can be beneficially to a collective group.

Rather than being 'evil', it is frowned upon.

JohnLFrazer's picture
Sam Harris made a set of

Sam Harris made a set of points which could be an argument for objective universal "morals" or ethics which can boil down to some simple contrasts.
Every reasonable creature can agree that being healthy and comfortable is better than hurting, stressed, starving, etc.
Imagine a state where everything capable of it is as "happy" as possible, and you have one point of data. Now on the opposite end of a spectrum, imagine a state where everything/everybody is suffering as much as it is possible to do so, for as long as it is possible to be so.

No woo, no mysticism, no stone tablets brought down from on high are necessary to plot an action on this one dimensional graph of good or bad.

I could argue that this in an objective morality anyone/anything could agree on.

Is burning an unpopular person to death in order to save the village from a disease or ensure next year's crops good or bad? A question no reasonable person needs take too much effort to come to terms with.

Leper's picture
@JohnLFrazer

@JohnLFrazer

"Is burning an unpopular person to death in order to save the village from a disease or ensure next year's crops good or bad? A question no reasonable person needs take too much effort to come to terms with."

Why would it be necessary to burn a person to death? Would there be some reason not to kill them first? In Islam burning is a prohibited form of punishment.

Sam Harris is so ignorant it's painful to listen to him.

LogicFTW's picture
@Leper

@Leper

"Is burning an unpopular person to death in order to save the village from a disease or ensure next year's crops good or bad? A question no reasonable person needs take too much effort to come to terms with."

I do not know all of Sam Harris's writing and speeches, but in the post you are referring to, it comes off to me that: JohnLFrazer said that, not Sam Harris.

Leper's picture
@LogicFTW

@LogicFTW

I know - if I understand you - but he said Sam Harris as if he was some kind of a person whose thoughts are worth mentioning.

Sheldon's picture
Leper "Sam Harris is so

Leper "Sam Harris is so ignorant it's painful to listen to him."

I feel exactly the same about your posts, though I can't say i agree about Harris.

Cognostic's picture
@Leper: Re: "In Islam

@Leper: Re: "In Islam burning is a prohibited form of punishment."

UNFORTUNATELY -
Throwing people from the tops of buildings is not prohibited -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvVOsb8pISQ

Cutting people's throats is not prohibited. (Apostates can be beheaded)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qkl6Q4_1IGQ

Women can be stoned to death
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jZI_oEU_Gg

It doesn't matter how you kill a Christian if you are Muslim.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7K_6GvpMlU

OH! WOOPS! DAMN! I STUMBLED ACROSS THE VERY VIDEO SAM HARRIS WAS REFERRING TO. SORRY TO BURST YOUR BUBBLE, MUSLIMS DO, IN FACT, BURN PEOPLE TO DEATH!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8msn0Luv_Kw

HERE IS ANOTHER: Viral Video: Girl Beaten Badly and Burnt Alive By Muslim Mob. (I am beginning to think Sam Harris has a point here)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st45B9JBg8w

Heaven forbid you should be a Jordanian Pilot; You get burned to death for that too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjclX0a7Ohk

Shouldn't you do at least a little reading before posting completely ignorant comments on the site. I'm just saying... not only does it make you look bad but it is another nail in the coffin for Muslims everywhere.

I guess you will just have to EAT WORMS on this one. The only person on the site that doesn't have a clue is......... (can you guess?)

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.