Atheist Q and A

Ok, correct me if I'm wrong.

You say that we can create objective morality by discussing and agreeing on what is right and wrong, by using reason to see consequences of actions and to come to an agreement what we consider consequences that are morally right and morally wrong.

But at the same time, there is no morality when there are no humans (no rational, social creatures).

Which is to say that objective morality does not exist in the universe, but is created and sustained by humans, only to vanish along with us?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Yeah, it was created by humanity and only effects humanity, makes sense that it should die with humanity.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 241

chemting

16

Original post by EricPiphany

To what extent does science actually explain the world we live in? Do you think our knowledge in physics is nearly complete or perhaps only just starting? Will we ever 'understand' the universe or are there always going to be limitations to our knowledge?

Our knowledge is nowhere near complete... there are many things we know we don't know, and probably even more things we don't know that we don't know. By "understanding", we can always put out models that have good predictive capability and improve our models to better establish cause and effect.
Inputting "god" in a process makes it extremely unhelpful and severs the relationship cause and effect. Inputting "god knows everything" adds more questions than it answers and results in less knowledge.

Reply 242

Scrappy-coco

3

Original post by StrawbAri

It makes me wonder why people have a mental picture of all atheists as some basement dwelling neckbeard. We aren't all bad.
If people would just put aside the us vs them mentality and engage in intellectual discussion then maybe both sides might learn something from the other.

Really, we are all in the same boat. Either God exists or he doesn't and the all the implications that follow from that etc. we're just searching for what's true.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 243

hellodave5

19

Original post by EricPiphany

To what extent does science actually explain the world we live in? Do you think our knowledge in physics is nearly complete or perhaps only just starting? Will we ever 'understand' the universe or are there always going to be limitations to our knowledge?

As a species, we think we know a lot more than we do. The boundaries of our knowledge aren't brill as it stands.
Though the rate at which it is still developing is very fast, seemingly in things like physics and neuroscience (knowledge of our universe and ourselves).I don't think we will ever know everything as increased knowledge just generates more unanswered questions, most likely infinitely.
It also seems that some things according to physical rules cannot be measured, at least simultaneously. Though perhaps computational ways around restrictions.
Future will be an interesting one, I hope.Though, in lack of all encompassing knowledge of everything, rule of parsimony seems a fair principle to live by.

Reply 244

Scrappy-coco

3

Original post by Cremated_Spatula

Yeah, it was created by humanity and only effects humanity, makes sense that it should die with humanity.

So would you agree that there isn't actually any objective morality and we simply create an illusion of objective morality?

I mean, is there a reason to think that objective morality follows from widespread agreement. If we all agree God exists, that doesn't mean it exists. If we all agree killing innocent children is wrong, that's doesn't mean it's wrong.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 245

frankieboy

13

Original post by EricPiphany

It's all worth it once you get to choose your own morality, no?

Well getting to choose one's morality is just a small fraction of the freedom that it affords me, but in answer to your question - yes.

Original post by EricPiphany

To what extent does science actually explain the world we live in?

A difficult question to answer, seeing as "To what extent" could arguably be a subjective term. To what extent compared to what? But I think certainly to a considerable extent compared to say a few hundred years ago. I think our knowledge seems to be expanding rapidly, and accelerating. However, I do think personally that religious beliefs have held us back from scientific knowledge, certainly in the past. A bit like trying to accelerate in a car with the handbrake on. IMHO religion is the "handbrake" of science.

Original post by EricPiphany

Do you think our knowledge in physics is nearly complete or perhaps only just starting? Will we ever 'understand' the universe or are there always going to be limitations to our knowledge?

The second part is extremely difficult to answer, but the first part - I think it's only just starting personally. Or at least I hope so. But I can't really quantify that logically TBH.

Reply 246

YesAllMen

12

Original post by Scrappy-coco

Yeah. There's certainly a lot more that we agree on than we disagree.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I can't tell; has her position of agnosticsm changed? I don't want to have make a long post to take her other one apart if she's changed her mind on the matter

Reply 247

frankieboy

13

Original post by Scrappy-coco

So would you agree that there isn't actually any objective morality and we simply create an illusion of objective morality?

I mean, is there a reason to think that objective morality follows from widespread agreement. If we all agree God exists, that doesn't mean it exists. If we all agree killing innocent children is wrong, that's doesn't mean it's wrong.

Perhaps one could determine morality in that which is logically the best course of action to ensure the survival of the human race?

I often think that's a possibility.

But yeah you could be right, you make a fair point.

Reply 248

frankieboy

13

Original post by YesAllMen

I don't want to have make a long post to take her other one apart if she's changed her mind on the matter

Or if the thread gets randomly pulled for no apparent reason as is often the case on here.

Reply 249

Scrappy-coco

3

Original post by YesAllMen

I can't tell; has her position of agnosticsm changed? I don't want to have make a long post to take her other one apart if she's changed her mind on the matter

I would follow the path of Aristotle and Aquinas. In the name of reason and metaphysics . . . . . Argue your point :biggrin:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 250

YesAllMen

12

Original post by frankieboy

Or if the thread gets randomly pulled for no apparent reason as is often the case on here.

I think this mainly happens if there's criticism of Islam -- so we're okay for now

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 251

Plantagenet Crown

20

Original post by champ_mc99

Hmmmm... seems plausible. Although the chances of individual molecules to react and form just one nucleotide seems tiny let alone a whole strand of DNA (or a cell). But thanks.

The chances are not tiny, I've made them in the lab using very mild and prebiotically plausible conditions...

Reply 252

Plantagenet Crown

20

Original post by HumzaAsad97

Subjective things have no intrinsic meaning for humanity, of course they will have meaning for the individual.

They don't NEED to have intrinsic meaning, that's the point!

I agree with your last paragraph, morals given by God aren't always the same - my mistake. But with a God, complete justice and consequences are given to the people he applied the moral code for. So in that sense the people of the time will have the illusion that this morality cannot change and is then objective. People cannot manipulate morality - something transcendent of the individual is controlling morality. Plus anything which is made 'good' will always have a positive impact on the individual in this life and the next, and vice versa.

So you're essentially agreeing with me when you say objective morality is an illusion. Yes, people may believe there are certain consequences but that's not really the topic that was being discussed, rather whether those so-called consequences stem from moral rules that are actually objective.

Reply 253

Cremated_Spatula

15

Original post by Scrappy-coco

So would you agree that there isn't actually any objective morality and we simply create an illusion of objective morality?

I mean, is there a reason to think that objective morality follows from widespread agreement. If we all agree God exists, that doesn't mean it exists. If we all agree killing innocent children is wrong, that's doesn't mean it's wrong.

Posted from TSR Mobile

There is no objective or static morality, so perhaps I have built an illusion of there being objectivity in deciding what is considered a positive or negative outcome.

Morality is more like a work in progress than a well-defined creed.

Spoiler

Reply 254

TuppenceB

2

Original post by TheOpinion

This is for those of faith who want to ask atheists on TSR anything about Atheism, why they don't believe etc. You can ask anything you want, just be polite :smile:

POLITE debate is encouraged.

Thanks :smile:

Do atheists believe in evolution?

Reply 255

Cremated_Spatula

15

Original post by EricPiphany

It's all worth it once you get to choose your own morality, no?

Christians often take morality into their own hands, hence why they keep changing their own interpretations of what certain scriptures mean.

Reply 256

Racoon

19

Original post by Cremated_Spatula

Christians often take morality into their own hands, hence why they keep changing their own interpretations of what certain scriptures mean.

They don't keep changing their interpretations. The bible is a revelation of God, unfolding.

Reply 257

Scrappy-coco

3

Original post by Cremated_Spatula

There is no objective or static morality, so perhaps I have built an illusion of there being objectivity in deciding what is considered a positive or negative outcome.

Morality is more like a work in progress than a well-defined creed.

Spoiler

Notice that morality being a work in progress doesn't necessitate that morality is subjective. It could be that our epistemological morality progresses but objective ontological morality is indeed static.

But to the point about God, it illustrates that the reasoning does not follow that, if everyone agreed that killing innocent children are wrong, it does not make it wrong. From a consensus does not follow truth.

Essentially, there is no way morality can be said to be objective in any real sense (apart a kind of created illusion that it is). We aren't saying that it is intrinsically wrong to kill innocent kids, only that it is if we agree so. But what if we agree the negation? Let's say we rewound the clock and let evolution play again. Hypothetical, let's say it's advantageous to kill innocent children. You may even be able to think of examples within our own evolutionary history where it was advantageous for one group to kill the children of another to achieve long lasting protection from attack and free reign of the local resources. What's to stop me from replying with a mirror image of your point:

"If everyone agreed killing innocent children was right, why wouldn't it be right"?

Posted from TSR Mobile