Why do we have to worship God?

[lasher]

ITT dizzy logically explains the reality of atheistic moral ontology while Xhat steals from non atheistic worldviews to pretend objective morality exists.

I can respect the formers honesty, I lol at the thieving of the latter.

[Xhat1]

There's nothing more rational about living in peace until you are 80 than going on a shooting spree and killing yourself. It's all personal preference, your death is guaranteed on the day you are born. Aesthetic pleasure is really the only "justification" of life as an atheist. Rationality is only useful to reach a goal, it can't pick the goal for you because life is an open possibility, a sandbox, with no scales to measure what is the "proper" experience. Nothing establishes the value of human life objectively.

Thankfully, people tend to share tastes which allows for common ground and society. And you have to be a deviant fuk to not want society. But it doesn't change the fact that life still has no measurable worth that isn't subjective. That is the ground floor of existence, that it is pointless. Pointless things can be enjoyable though

I've never seen somebody refute this, because I don't think it can be done with the information we have about life. Ayn Rand essentially starts her philosophy with the premise that life is its own value every moment you are alive to deal with the problem of moral nihilism, but it is an arbitrary and disputable premise

Just because we establish a moral rule doesn't mean people have to adhere to it, even if we come up with one that is logically consistent and as close to perfect as we can hope to get. The 80 year old may decide to do that knowing full well how evil it is and without suffering from any kind of mental defect like dementia. The point of discussing morality isn't to determine how people are going to behave or how we should try to force them to behave, it's to determine whether a proposed interaction is right or wrong, good or evil, etc, in the context of human understanding.

ITT dizzy logically explains the reality of atheistic moral ontology while Xhat steals from non atheistic worldviews to pretend objective morality exists.

I can respect the formers honesty, I lol at the thieving of the latter.

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." - Newton

I'm a fan of wisdom, whether it comes from a theist or not. If you disregard everything atheists have to say then you have my pity. It's probably an involuntary reaction for you theist types though. Can't let dat dere critical thinking sneak in.

Keep the faith brother.

[DizzySmalls]

You didn't address my post at all. You can't know something to be evil and I'm not talking about predicting behavior or societal conduct at all. Get politics out of your mind for two seconds and address it from an individual stand point.

[Xhat1]

You didn't address my post at all. You can't know something to be evil and I'm not talking about predicting behavior or societal conduct at all. Get politics out of your mind for two seconds and address it from an individual stand point.

Sure I can. Murder, ****philia, theft, etc, all demonstrably immoral. My conclusion is based 0% on politics or any sort of social convention. I am, again, reasoning based on rational empiricism within the context of observable human behavior. These conclusions are specific to the human condition and not imposed by an external force, except maybe the biological forces that lead to life itself (biology is not my strongest subject).

[MosquitoBiteBra]

because he said so dummy

[DizzySmalls]

Sure I can. Murder, ****philia, theft, etc, all demonstrably immoral. My conclusion is based 0% on politics or any sort of social convention. I am, again, reasoning based on rational empiricism within the context of observable human behavior. These conclusions are specific to the human condition and not imposed by an external force, except maybe the biological forces that lead to life itself (biology is not my strongest subject).

lol... let's hear some of this rational empiricism instead of just continuing to say it. Demonstrate that rape is immoral. Don't demonstrate that rape doesn't work well in civilized society, demonstrate that it is inherently wrong.

A hypothetical world with three people in it. The strongest rapes the other two for pleasure. Why is this wrong?

[GreatOldOne]

Would also like to hear some "professional" philosophers explain why my previous post is incorrect.

Well, I'm not that. But:

I don't think that the drives are random by any stretch or non-existent. I just don't think that the the universe cares or that it makes any real difference what those drives are

Since we exist in the universe, it is clear that the universe not only self-organizes and perceives but also cares (in a limited way) about ideas such as 'morality'. There is no getting around that. Unless you feel like going to a different universe.

However, there is no great reason to identify with 'the moon' from a personal perspective. We are all made of stars, but it hurts to catch a punch. You cannot conclude from that 'souls' and 'magic' nor can you say that 'pain did not happen'. Morality is an illusory concept like every other one, but for what we are discussing we can focus the context and say things like 'good' and 'bad' and they do refer to real things. To you, they go to emotions which go in turn to reality...IMO.

'Nihilism' and 'normal' are simply tools we use like all of the other words we have.

I do not think morality is grounded in 'love'. That, is an event. Morality IMO is grounded in the unknowable and hopefully we do it correctly. What is the consequence for doing something bad? Something bad happening.

Regarding the skeptical aspect, 'Why would I care since I cannot know it?'. The answer seems obvious. Skepticism is logically correct. But we are going to assume things anyway.

We have no choice.

People do think they need a moral compass to guide them and to them its absolutely fantastic to have it written down by somebody else. That saves all the effort of thinking.

But cognition about morality is almost always going to come after the fact. It is a process which occurs after the behavior in a huge set of events to organize what happened, IMO.

The, 'need for an ontology for morality' to me is laughable. I need that like I need a reason to go to the bathroom to piss.

The cosmos at large does not care. That isn't going to stop me.

[GreatOldOne]

ITT dizzy logically explains the reality of atheistic moral ontology while Xhat steals from non atheistic worldviews to pretend objective morality exists.

I can respect the formers honesty, I lol at the thieving of the latter.

Don't b mad becauz we stoled all ur bases. We'll even steal your God and call it reality. We r also taking the deists and agnostics and you'll have nobody to play with.

[Xhat1]

lol... let's hear some of this rational empiricism instead of just continuing to say it. Demonstrate that rape is immoral. Don't demonstrate that rape doesn't work well in civilized society, demonstrate that it is inherently wrong.

A hypothetical world with three people in it. The strongest rapes the other two for pleasure. Why is this wrong?

Rape is pretty easy. If the rapist wants to claim the action to be moral, he has to universalize it (logical consistency). As the rapist is doing his thing, he's claiming a moral right to impose his sexual preferences upon others. If it's moral to impose his sexual preferences on others, it's moral for his victim to impose his/her sexual preferences on him. Which he is not allowing.

Rape is basically the argument that the imposition of sexual desire is both moral and immoral at the same time. Rape is fails as a moral argument, thus it is demonstrably immoral. You may want to try to argue that it's an amoral action next, if so, we can do that next.

[DizzySmalls]

I don't think you need objective morality to have a "morality". I don't care about the idea of objective morality because there is no reason to believe we can find one. The choice is clear, simply accept that you have tastes, act accordingly and without guilt (as if you have a choice), and never forget that you are only stating your tastes.

I don't like food from the ocean, everybody tells me it's the best though as if there is something wrong with me and objectively good about seafood. I recognize the tendency of people to really like it, the willingness they have to pay hefty amounts for it. I'm not about to start eating it on that account. I'd rather eat a loaf of dry bread, shamelessly. Does my deviancy know no bounds?

To xhat, move right on to amoralism which is obviously what I am talking about.

[GreatOldOne]

I don't think you need objective morality to have a "morality". I don't care about the idea of objective morality because there is no reason to believe we can find one. The choice is clear, simply accept that you have tastes, act accordingly and without guilt (as if you have a choice), and never forget that you are only stating your tastes.

I don't like food from the ocean, everybody tells me it's the best though as if there is something wrong with me and objectively good about seafood. I recognize the tendency of people to really like it, the willingness they have to pay hefty amounts for it. I'm not about to start eating it on that account. I'd rather eat a loaf of dry bread, shamelessly. Does my deviancy know no bounds?

To xhat, move right on to amoralism which is obviously what I am talking about.

We can find one in the same way we find out about other real things. Eventually people will naturally adopt certain tastes and opinions. There are large variances.

I think there is a universal aesthetic. I'm not sure how there could not be. You couldn't take a scribble and equate it to a great work of art any more than you could pinch somebody and say that is the same as killing millions of people for no reason.

You don't need 'Gods approval' to make this judgement and if you wanted to scientifically support your evaluation you could do a survey.

If you wanted to say, 'doing a survey' is impossible you'd have to admit that people have no ability to perceive correctly.

Your conclusions are applicable to 'people'. You don't include rocks, other planets, lobsters, and the wind in your survey. We are only talking about human concepts and it doesn't matter that the cosmos at large to include black holes does not care what you think.

[DizzySmalls]

If everybody shares the same taste on one matter, does that make it objective instead of subjective? Or just a lack of variation among subjects?

Why would one want to scientifically justify their moral evaluations from the egoist standpoint?

Point taken about my use of the phrase "the universe doesn't care". I will find a way to express what I mean better

[josef90]

God could be real but he might be a kid that needs some fun.

[Myriad88]

Atheists tend to misunderstand the moral argument.

[DizzySmalls]

Atheists tend to misunderstand the moral argument.

Elaborate

[Myriad88]

Elaborate

More often than not an explanation is given in terms of how certain behaviours are socially beneficial, while others are disadvantageous.


That doesnt explain moral ontology.

[eltigar]

We can find one in the same way we find out about other real things. Eventually people will naturally adopt certain tastes and opinions. There are large variances.

I think there is a universal aesthetic. I'm not sure how there could not be. You couldn't take a scribble and equate it to a great work of art any more than you could pinch somebody and say that is the same as killing millions of people for no reason.

You don't need 'Gods approval' to make this judgement and if you wanted to scientifically support your evaluation you could do a survey.

If you wanted to say, 'doing a survey' is impossible you'd have to admit that people have no ability to perceive correctly.

Your conclusions are applicable to 'people'. You don't include rocks, other planets, lobsters, and the wind in your survey. We are only talking about human concepts and it doesn't matter that the cosmos at large to include black holes does not care what you think.

can i ask you, what are your personal beleifs?
you seem like an interesting mind to examine.

[TheBladeMike]

there is no god


/thread


this might as well be a thread in the WWE forum and the question from OP is stupid, no ones forcing you op is your dad beating you? you dont have to believe bro I dont see someone with a gun to your head

[lskandar]

You ARE God <3

[Weightaholic]

Well, I'm not that. But:

Since we exist in the universe, it is clear that the universe not only self-organizes and perceives but also cares (in a limited way) about ideas such as 'morality'. There is no getting around that.

I highly suspect the universe is quite indifferent, and your assertion would appear to be quite unprovable.

God could be real but he might be a kid that needs some fun.

God may be a baby pushing things off the table to watch them bounce. Maybe all of this is just him learning.

[DizzySmalls]

More often than not an explanation is given in terms of how certain behaviours are socially beneficial, while others are disadvantageous.


That doesnt explain moral ontology.

This is my stance as well. I think atheists cling to the idea of morality to not be perceived as if you need God to be "moral", when all that they are really saying is that atheism doesn't make you into an anti-social monster

[Xhat1]

To xhat, move right on to amoralism which is obviously what I am talking about.

Hey there. I'm in a rush so I'll be brief and then just respond to any follow up questions.

We've agreed that arguments or observations about others are objective. Any time your proposed action or argument involves other people, it falls into objectivity. To tie this in with morality, based on the terms we've agreed upon (I think), we can describe a moral as a personal preference that is applied to others, and the validity of that application can be determined based on certain criteria.

Basically any time you involve other people into your preferences, there's no question of being amoral, because you've left subjective, personal preference behind.

In the case of a rapist, this is observable, because even if we claimed the rapists opinion is that his action is amoral, what do you think would happen if someone tried to rape him? Or his victim tried to physically stop him?

[Myriad88]

can i ask you, what are your personal beleifs?
you seem like an interesting mind to examine.

yes, but it occasionally overheats and needs rebooting

[waffleSS]

I think the concept of religion is a much needed device for the average human to function properly. People worship gods, because they need to believe someone protects them, very similar to how children feel protected by their parents. Many people can't handle the assumption everything you do is on you. The thought of such responsibility for your own life and others is too much. In the end I see religion as a good thing as long you're not forcing it on others and you find peace for yourself in it.

Honestly I do believe there is a creator, much more different than we imagine and what all the self-righteous religions teach us to visualize. Also it's easier for me to choose to seek comfort in some kind of existence after death. There is absolutely nothing to base this on, but as long it gives me the comfort to have a less worrisome existence, it's fine I guess.

[DizzySmalls]

Hey there. I'm in a rush so I'll be brief and then just respond to any follow up questions.

We've agreed that arguments or observations about others are objective. Any time your proposed action or argument involves other people, it falls into objectivity. To tie this in with morality, based on the terms we've agreed upon (I think), we can describe a moral as a personal preference that is applied to others, and the validity of that application can be determined based on certain criteria.

Basically any time you involve other people into your preferences, there's no question of being amoral, because you've left subjective, personal preference behind.

In the case of a rapist, this is observable, because even if we claimed the rapists opinion is that his action is amoral, what do you think would happen if someone tried to rape him? Or his victim tried to physically stop him?

You are assigning innate value to human beings. The reason that actions are amoral is because you can't establish the value of human beings without taking some form of subjective stance about what is valuable. Even if the rapist thinks his action is immoral, I'm arguing it's amoral. Seeing as he is the strongest, the others wouldn't be able to stop him. Even if they became stronger and raped him, and he suffered and hated it, it's still not making the action moral or immoral.

"Might makes right" and "Everybody should be treated as you would like to be treated" are both subjective points of view. I don't think the actions of human beings are any more moral or immoral than other animals, it's just people following their nature. Surely human beings do have a more complicated nature, but I don't think you can argue we are more valuable than an ant OBJECTIVELY. Subjectively, on the other hand, we value each other as societal animals, and that is all you need to act in a traditionally "moral" fashion.

[GreatOldOne]

If everybody shares the same taste on one matter, does that make it objective instead of subjective? Or just a lack of variation among subjects?

Why would one want to scientifically justify their moral evaluations from the egoist standpoint?

Point taken about my use of the phrase "the universe doesn't care". I will find a way to express what I mean better

Everyone won't agree and it's not objective in the meaningless sense that it is 'known' once all observers are dead. I'm thinking more of objective as what is available to be perceived by all observers and in the sense where statistics are meaningful.

That's also not to say that society couldn't change in powerful ways to skew bias so greatly that the same survey wouldn't produce the same results at a later time or that it might stay that way indefinitely. The later results would in that (IMO) unlikely scenario simply be incorrect but nobody would be able to realize that.

Whether the results at any given time could be known with complete certainty isn't relevant, IMO, because the tool of skepticism is always available to introduce at least a minor, perhaps trivial, doubt in anything you say you want to know (IMO).

But I think it is fairly supported that big ideas like, 'murder', 'rape', etc...are judged as 'evil'. It is just a word like everything else, referring to your emotions and observations which in turn are formed by observed differences in reality by biological systems outside of your epistemic awareness and control.

[GreatOldOne]

I highly suspect the universe is quite indifferent, and your assertion would appear to be quite unprovable.

Since you are in the universe, the universe cares in a minor way. I am not suggesting that rocks and asteroids care. 'Care' is something for people...which are aspects of the universe.

[DizzySmalls]

Everyone won't agree and it's not objective in the meaningless sense that it is 'known' once all observers are dead. I'm thinking more of objective as what is available to be perceived by all observers and in the sense where statistics are meaningful.

That's also not to say that society couldn't change in powerful ways to skew bias so greatly that the same survey wouldn't produce the same results at a later time or that it might stay that way indefinitely. The later results would in that (IMO) unlikely scenario simply be incorrect but nobody would be able to realize that.

Whether the results at any given time could be known with complete certainty isn't relevant, IMO, because the tool of skepticism is always available to introduce at least a minor, perhaps trivial, doubt in anything you say you want to know (IMO).

But I think it is fairly supported that big ideas like, 'murder', 'rape', etc...are judged as 'evil'. It is just a word like everything else, referring to your emotions and observations which in turn are formed by observed differences in reality by biological systems outside of your epistemic awareness and control.

How are emotions completely rational or logical? I think irrationality is a critical aspect of life.

And I do think that murder and rape will generally be judged by health people in a civilized culture to be distasteful. I'm certainly not advocating that we change that taste. I'm a peace loving pussy at heart, I just don't think morality is necessary to explain anything. Extreme examples work best to demonstrate what one is talking about.

And it should be mentioned that I agree with Xhat on the fact that the average person NEEDS morality to be an unchanging, fixed absolute that they are bound to. Amoralism is a useful tool for those who want to influence the direction of morality and set the tone for the plebs. In order to create new values and weights, you need to be willing to see the old values and weights as being arbitrary or non-binding.

[KRANE]

Since you are in the universe, the universe cares in a minor way. I am not suggesting that rocks and asteroids care. 'Care' is something for people...which are aspects of the universe.

Just yesterday mankind was living in caves and painting himself blue. Today, he knows more than God. The audacity!

[DizzySmalls]

Just yesterday mankind was living in caves and painting himself blue. Today, he knows more than God. The audacity!

Don't worry I'll take my torture for it in stride.