-->
@FLRW
This proves that there is no afterlife as the anesthesia should not be able to affect a soul.
But death should.
Atheists can't do good as Atheists.
Posts
Total:
94
-->
@ludofl3x
I also demonstrated that when Ludo says he would do good because it was the right thing to do - was nonsense. It is as arbitrary a thought process as many others. To do good - is subjective. And "because it is the right thing" is subjective. Who determines what is the right thing? Who determines what good is? Unless there are absolutes, then these things ARE arbitrary by definition. That is the meaning of subjective.Uh, I never disagreed that these things are subjective. I determine it, for me, in the moment. I determine what I think good is, then I act accordingly. Sometimes I'm wrong, most times I'm right. It's arbitrary but many, many, many people agree that it's 'good' to hold a door for an old woman. I don't need to check with Jesus.
Well then you agree that atheists are subjective and arbitrary. Thank you for your honesty. But that also produces a dilemma doesn't? Why do good? What is your motivation? Obviously, your good today might be bad tomorrow. Is it to make yourself feel good? Is that your motivation? Obviously it cannot be just be "it's the right thing". How do you know sometimes you are wrong and most times you are right? That sounds pretty arrogant! How can you make such an absolute statement when it is clearly a subjective assessment? Again arbitrary reasoning.
Again just because many people say it is good to hold a door for an old woman is a good thing, doesn't explain why it is a good thing. Is it always good to hold a door for an old woman? Is it just in the moment? Are you doing good to please the majority of people at the moment? It is too arbitrary. You need to explain it further. Why is it good? What makes it good?
When our world becomes totally subjective. And that is logical conclusion and the inescapable position of there being no god. I am still waiting for someone - anyone to refute this. Saying there are humanist worldviews - does not produce a standard and agreed definition of good. Saying it changes over time does not assist either. Arbitrary understandings of good or "the right thing" simply don't cut it.What exactly is your objection to an entirely subjective view of morality or good? Saying "doesn't cut it" doesn't explain why. On the other hand, if 'objective good' is just code for god, then something is either ALWAYS good or NEVER good. Of course you're going to say it's never good to have sex with a one month old baby (about the straw-iest straw man there ever was), but was it ever "good" to have sex with your dad? Is it ever good to stone a woman in the streets?
My objection to a totally subjective view on morality is that it means there is no good or bad. That is the point. It removes measurements. and it pretty much means people can do whatever they like. It means that pedophilia is only subjectively bad, not objectively evil. It means killing a human life is only wrong subjectively, not because it is objectively wrong. It means that trying to help the world becomes meaningless, because what you want to do to improve the world is going to be different to what I want to do to improve the world. When morality becomes totally subjective - (ironically even the word totally or "entirely" presumes absolute and objective) then morality loses its meaning.
I never said objective good is a code word for God. I do take the view that without God there can be objectivity. Having sex with a one month old baby is an offence and activity that takes place many times all over the world. It is a sick and perverted act by people who say "I can't help it, I was born this way". And anyway, who is going to tell me how to live my life? It is not a strawman argument. It is on the point to demonstrate that somethings are objectively wrong. And most people would agree that this is true. To call it a strawman argument is to concede the point since it is a relevant argument.
You raise an interesting point about absolutes. Since I have argued against totally subjective laws, you seem to consider that this implies that I believe in absolute morality absolutely. Yet, I did not say that and I do not believe it. I think that in the world there are some morals which are absolute and objective but I also think that there are some morals which are subjective, even cultural. I hold to a mixed view and I can demonstrate why I hold to this view. Plato/ Aristotle - holds to the view you imply I hold to. Indeed Catholics do - after Aquinas. They hold to a very black and white world. What I would consider two -dimensional.
There is an interesting correlation here to economic systems. The market economy and the command economy. Theories exist in economics for both end of the spectrum - but interestingly, every economy is actually a mixed one. There is no underlying epistemology for a mixed economy. Mostly, it ends up being explained in terms of pragmatics. Yet there is a very plausible underlying rational for a mixed economy and it is the same one as for morality. The mix between absolutes and subjectivity.
The Garden of Eden is an interesting picture of this mix. God placed humanity into the garden and told them - they could eat from any tree except one.
An Absolute concept. Don't eat from that one tree. Subjective and relative concept. You can eat from any other tree.
It is freedom within a boundary. It is not all absolutes. You must eat from that tree. It is not all subjective. You must not eat from that tree.
True freedom - true subjective morality - exists within boundaries - within absolutes or objectivity.
Your position is eat from every tree. Just eat from a different one when you feel like it etc. The Catholics after Aquinas and Aristotle and Plato say - you must eat only from that tree and then that tree.
This is not pragmatism. It is freedom within boundaries. Atheists choose to not believe in boundaries. They choose to be free. Yet they don't realize that freedom means nothing unless there are boundaries.
-->
@Tradesecret
But what is a conscience?It is that little voice inside that makes you feel like shit when you've made someone else feel like shit. Disharmony.
What is this little voice? And why does it make you feel so bad?
Who knows? Maybe it's just part of being concsious. We can intuitively tell when things are out of balance.
Is it material or immaterial?Everything is immaterial.
I am not immaterial. I exist in the here and now.
What is current physics leads you to believe you are material? Existing just means you exist, nothing more. It says nothing about whether you are a material thing or not.
Is it part of the soul or part of the brain?I am not sure what a soul is. I suspect it must have something to do with consciousness and how that is heirarchichally set up.
Ok, Are you suggesting the soul has something to do with the consciousness? What do you mean hierarchically set up?
I mean our consciousness is a part of a larger one. And that is a part of a larger one and so on. And it goes down as well. I am sure the bacterial cells and mitochondria that make us up have their own consciousness.
Is the brain the mind?Maybe. I think the brain is a limiter of consciousness. It's what breaks off a seperate consciuosness from a larger one (ultimately, God).
How does the brain limit the consciousness? I don't understand. Are you hindu?
I have wide ranging beliefs,and some are Hindu beliefs. The brain limits consciousness by giving us the barriers of only five senses. I'm sure you know there are other creatures with more senses than that. Electric and magnetic senses are two I know for sure.
Do Atheist's have a conscience?Yes of course. They are human.
I reckon many would dispute that they are human. I think they are just apes in human skin.
That's a shitty way to think of your fellow humans.
How did it evolve?I don't know. I am not sure that things evolve. They might. I am open minded about it.
Do you believe in special creation then?
Yes.
-->
@janesix
But what is a conscience?It is that little voice inside that makes you feel like shit when you've made someone else feel like shit. Disharmony.What is this little voice? And why does it make you feel so bad?Who knows? Maybe it's just part of being concsious. We can intuitively tell when things are out of balance.
It does not sound very reliable. Would you trust it? And why would anyone else?
Is it material or immaterial?Everything is immaterial.I am not immaterial. I exist in the here and now.What is current physics leads you to believe you are material? Existing just means you exist, nothing more. It says nothing about whether you are a material thing or not.
You might just exist. I am living. And enjoying life. Even in the midst of Covid-19 I am enjoying life as best I am able. Yet, I am material - and although I did say I am not immaterial, I meant I am not all immaterial. I do live in the present though,
Is it part of the soul or part of the brain?I am not sure what a soul is. I suspect it must have something to do with consciousness and how that is heirarchichally set up.Ok, Are you suggesting the soul has something to do with the consciousness? What do you mean hierarchically set up?I mean our consciousness is a part of a larger one. And that is a part of a larger one and so on. And it goes down as well. I am sure the bacterial cells and mitochondria that make us up have their own consciousness.
What do you mean ours is part of a larger one? I have no idea what you are talking about. And unless you can demonstrate that - I will need to reject it at first glance. I do believe in God - but I am not part of God. God is not part of me. But you will need to explain your bacterial cells and mitochondria more.
Is the brain the mind?Maybe. I think the brain is a limiter of consciousness. It's what breaks off a seperate consciuosness from a larger one (ultimately, God).How does the brain limit the consciousness? I don't understand. Are you hindu?I have wide ranging beliefs,and some are Hindu beliefs. The brain limits consciousness by giving us the barriers of only five senses. I'm sure you know there are other creatures with more senses than that. Electric and magnetic senses are two I know for sure.
Ok. So what would you label yourself as? Or do you choose to be unlabable? And how does that fit with a higher consciousness? Yes lots of animals can do things which humanity cannot. Birds can fly. Etc.
Do Atheist's have a conscience?Yes of course. They are human.I reckon many would dispute that they are human. I think they are just apes in human skin.That's a shitty way to think of your fellow humans.
Ok. I accept they are human. But not very rational and very arbitrary. I also think they are very simplistic - otherwise they might be able to notice that their only doctrine naturally implies much more than they desire.
How did it evolve?I don't know. I am not sure that things evolve. They might. I am open minded about it.Do you believe in special creation then?Yes.
Wow! What kind of special creation do you believe in? What does it look like?