Atheist Q and A

lool how can you objectively point the finger and call me immoral when morality without God is relative? If you call me immoral from your relative point of view then fine, means as much the same to me as if you had called me moral. Anyway i am not saying I'm only 'good' because God exists, I'm saying because God exists in my opinion then good and bad can have intrinsic value.

Otherwise where do you get your morals from? Society? That means your only good because society conditioned you in a certain way to believe 'x' is good and 'y' is bad.

Again, you're making the assumption that just because humans feel happy and that they have improved their lives then thats good. That's a purely emotive way of looking at things. You've just commited the is ought fallacy.

And i never said I didnt see any value in it. Im just saying that because I believe in God the good that i see in it has some intrinsic value and will remain the same no matter what culture/society i live in

Well, is Sirius Black a necessary being for example?

I said that if you are only good because you believe god exists, then you are immoral. I thought it was fairly clear what I meant: regardless of whether or not I am an objective being, I aspire to be good by doing things because they are good, or at least, because I think they are good.

You have admitted you are a subjective being. So not only do you only act good because you believe god exists (rather than because something is good), you only do things because other people tell you to do them, regardless of whether they are good or not.

In regards my morals, I am somewhat informed by society (including the laws and ethics), although I have also rejected the 'morals' of organised religions for example. I generally wish to treat others as I consider optimal, based partly on how I would wish to be treated, but also somewhat on how they would wish to be treated, if their tastes are different (there are some 'tastes' I will not indulge in however).

If it is a fallacy to believe that humans have objectively improved their lives in most areas, then it is a marvelous fallacy. If humans did not wish for such aspirations, and forever continue to work for them, and achieve more and more, we would still be hitting each other with clubs or starting at our navels. I know that those who believe in the afterlife may wish to voice the view that this mortal life has little or no value, but I think it is very important to value life and make the world a better place.

It doesn't take astounding intellect to realise what kind of consequences your actions will have, what causes another person to suffer for example.

Being an atheist, I am free to realise the downfalls of the morality or doctrine presented to me in religious texts by taking a look at the bigger picture. I am not weighed down by the fear of being eternally tortured or loosing the opportunity of an afterlife.

Reality isn't black and white and a list of assertions on what is bad and what is good, just doesn't cut it. It very much depends on context, as to how a person responds.

No, there was no 'before' the BB as time did not exist, being a property of the universe itself.

To extrapolate, God could not have caused the BB because there existed no time for him do so in.

Therefore the BB did not need a cause, because there did not exist time in which the cause could have existed.

Cause and effect only exist in time.

Prior to our universe there was no time.

God as a cause would have had to precede the effect he was responsible for, in time.

1) I do not believe that the definition of universe necessarily means all physical substance, because that would assume there has essentially only been one universe, and that only one exists at a time. I could loosely accept this point however.
2) I do not believe there needs to be a time before the existence of this universe.
3) I do not accept 2), so certainly do not accept this. I do not believe there is any merit in believing in the non-physical, and do not believe that it could be observed.
4) I do not believe the universe necessarily had a cause, and also, there will never be any evidence of the "non-physical".

Lol I was referring to the other dude's answer, calling it slightly vague. I never heard of this theory. Could you tell me more about it?

This solves nothing as you have, perhaps unwittingly invoked the Euthyphro Dilemma. If God chooses what is right and wrong based on his wishes and whims then his morality is just as subjective as ours. Ascribing objectivity to God's subjectively chosen morals is absurd as it's implying that a being's nature dictates the nature of its morals which has no basis in logic.

And if you pick the other horn of the dilemma, that right and wrong are right and wrong regardless of what God thinks then there must be a moral code over which he has no control and sovereignty.

Although these conditions don't eradicate any possibility for a cause of the universe, for you could have simultaneous causation. Examples of simultaneous causation would be a bowling bowl that is pushing down on a cushion or a chain which is simultaneously holding up a chandelier


Posted from TSR Mobile

No, there was no 'before' the BB as time did not exist, being a property of the universe itself.

To extrapolate, God could not have caused the BB because there existed no time for him do so in.

Therefore the BB did not need a cause, because there did not exist time in which the cause could have existed.

Cause and effect only exist in time.

Prior to our universe there was no time.

God as a cause would have had to precede the effect he was responsible for, in time.

Oh my...Again not understanding what I was arguing at all. I'm not using the moral argument to prove the existence of God or that atheists don't have morality. He said I was 'immoral' for saying that God makes my morals have intrinsic meaning. If he believes in subjective morals, then him calling me immoral means absolutely nothing!

Plus you don't have to ascribe objectivity to God's morality. Saying that God has chosen morals for us is fine. In our point of view we will have an illusion of objective morality (just as we have an illusion of free will) as their is a consequence for our actions. The consequences have remained fixed and the morals have remained fixed for all time. Unline the consequences and morals of societal conditioning.

I disagree, agnosticism generally has the view that a position cannot be resolved and maybe even be irresolvable. This is usually something that most people would only conclude of matters on a different plain to them: Only people who are uncertain of their own existence would use the term "agnostic" in such a widespread fashion. Or perhaps theists need to remind themselves they are certain?

Why is it used only in reference to God's existence? When you reflect on the epistemology of our knowledge, you soon realise that agnostic applies to either everything we know or almost everything we know. Yet there seems to be a need to be precise with saying we aren't certain when it comes to God's existence. Put it this way, if we are to be consistent, we should put agnostic in front of almost every word that represents a belief. But we don't need to qualify the lack of certainty - it's obvious. Why does there seem to be the need to qualify that with God's existence? Do atheists need to remind themselves that they aren't certain?

I think the only time someone should qualify their view on God is when they put gnostic in front. Perhaps they think they can prove God exists and so know with certainty or that they can show the impossibility of God and so he doesn't exist with certainty.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Ok... I get your point about the existence of time being dependent on the universe existing. But I think that just leads us to deducing another aspect of whatever caused the existence of the universe: it must be beyond the bounds of time.

I see no reason why we should therefore assume that the Big Bang did not have a cause. If the Big Bang had no cause, then essentially we're claiming that nothing produced something (i.e. the Big Bang) which seems illogical.

I think there has to be something that exists beyond the realms of time and space that could have caused the existence of time and space. What that something is - 'God' or an abstract being or something else entirely - is a separate question.

How does it feel to be constantly convincing yourself that God doesn't exist?

It explores the early conditions of Earth and explores how small organic molecules such as nucleosides could have undergone three-component domino reactions to make nucleosides. These can be phosphorylated to form nucleotides which are the building blocks of RNA and DNA, allowing the first life forms to code genetic information.

Not true as what you're in essence saying is that subjective things have no meaning when they do for many people. We can still consider things immoral while admitting they're subjective, basing it on our own personal morality or that of society in general.

And the Euthyphro Dilemma is perfectly relevant for the point that saying something is immoral according to God's law would mean nothing either, as his morals were chosen by him and thus just as subjective.

But morals don't remain fixed for all time though, how can you even say that? Plenty of things were immoral in the past which are now not considered as such and even in certain religions like Christianity there were things in he OT that were immoral which God no longer considers immoral.

It doesn't feel like anything because I put no effort into it.