Does morality require a god?

[EricE]

1 hour ago, LeSellers said:

You continue to assume that there is no evidence. The fact that you reject it does not mean the evidence is not there.

Until recently, no one knew there were atoms, nor their structure. That did not make atoms imaginary, nor did discovering them (such as we have) make them suddenly pop into existence.

The only-what-I-see crowd has been wrong thousands of times before. Why should this time be any different?

Lehi

 

The person I was talking to had just said there was no actual evidence. Keep up with the conversation, and discuss in context, or stop commenting because you're not adding anything helpful.

[EricE]

42 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

It seems you are implying that polygyny is immoral. How did you reach that conclusion, because that flies in the face of reality.

You claim that your morality is based on survival of the species. Polygyny is vastly more likely to result in a continuation of humanity than monogyny. The best men (richest, best looking, strongest, most powerful in any way) will get the best women. The next best men will get the next best women until the least desirable men will have none at all. These men, unable to pass along their genes, become genetic dead ends, and the best men, having many more children than they could under monogamy, pass along superior genes, enhancing the species and insuring its survival.

Lehi

Who is this person you're arguing against? Because I have not once argued that that polygamy was immoral, nor have I ever claimed that my or anyone's morality is based on survival of species. If you want to play with your straw man in the corner, that's fine. But perhaps you should stop quoting others so we can just ignore you.

[LeSellers]

16 minutes ago, EricE said:

The person I was talking to had just said there was no actual evidence.

Again, you reject evidence because it doesn't conform to your notion of "actual evidence".

You can't measure temperature with a compass, nor distance with a spectroscope. You are trying to do the same kind of thing.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

16 minutes ago, EricE said:

… nor have I ever claimed that my or anyone's morality is based on survival of species.

This sure sounds like it:

4 hours ago, EricE said:

Human beings are social animals, and just like other social animals we have an innate sense of simple morality. I argued above that this secular morality was based on well-being. The well-being of individuals, the society, and the species.

Lehi

[EricE]

@rpframe I don't doubt in the slightest that you believe that what you've seen or experience is accurate. But just because we think what we have experienced is accurate doesn't make it so. It's the same reason why eyewitness accounts of an incident are notoriously unreliable. I read a paper where a teacher asked his students a few days after 9/11 to write down what they were doing when they heard about it. 10 years later, the teacher got back in touch with the students and asked them the same question. Their answers were wildly different then the originals, but they were so certain of the new memories they had developed that when the teacher showed them the original answers, many responded that he must have forged them.

I don't say that a god doesn't exist. I argue that there is not enough evidence to convince me or anyone else of the assertion that a god does exist. Really it all comes down to caring about whether or not what you believe is true, because our beliefs inform our actions and they don't exist into a vacuum. So the more false things you believe without evidence, the more likely you are to do the same in other areas of your life that can harm you and others.

[EricE]

7 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

This sure sounds like it:

Lehi

 

This almost isn't even worth responding to. You're trying to pick out individual words from my sentences to string together something for you to fight against. Let me say it one more time. I align with Sam Harris' argument that our morality is based on well being. The well being of the individual, the society, and the species. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, EricE said:

I don't say that a god doesn't exist. I argue that there is not enough evidence to convince me or anyone else of the assertion that a god does exist.

Then you are agnostic, not atheist, as your profile says? Because by declaring yourself atheist, you are saying God doesn't exist.

[LeSellers]

5 minutes ago, EricE said:

The well being of the individual, the society, and the species.

The three do not necessarily align.

So, we're back to what's wrong with murder if it enhances one person's :well being"? He's an individual, isn't he?

Lehi

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

Then you are agnostic, not atheist, as your profile says? Because by declaring yourself atheist, you are saying God doesn't exist.

I think agnosticism is more "correct" because in reality, you can't know that God doesn't exist. Obviously an atheist/agnostic would say (with some justification) that you can't know He does exist.

I think all beliefs (theism and atheism/agnosticism) are fundamentally leaps of faith at least to some degree. 

Edited August 12, 2016 by MormonGator

[EricE]

4 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

The three do not necessarily align.

So, we're back to what's wrong with murder if it enhances one person's :well being"? He's an individual, isn't he?

Lehi

I'm done engaging with you. I don't find your responses intellectually honest. This is my first post in these forums, so I'm not sure on how this works, but I would appreciate it if you wouldn't comment again.

[Anddenex]

6 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

Then you are agnostic, not atheist, as your profile says? Because by declaring yourself atheist, you are saying God doesn't exist.

Well...not necessarily, over the past few years there are many in different groups which consider themselves Atheist/Agnostic or Agnostic/Atheist. I have never understood the reasoning on how they can be both, but there are groups which specify as such.

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Well...not necessarily, over the past few years there are many in different groups which consider themselves Atheist/Agnostic or Agnostic/Atheist. I have never understood the reasoning on how they can be both, but there are groups which specify as such.

I've seen people say they are agnostic leaning atheist or agnostic leaning theist, which is much more rare. 

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Well...not necessarily, over the past few years there are many in different groups which consider themselves Atheist/Agnostic or Agnostic/Atheist. I have never understood the reasoning on how they can be both, but there are groups which specify as such.

I've seen people say they are agnostic leaning atheist or agnostic leaning theist, which is much more rare. 

[Anddenex]

6 minutes ago, EricE said:

I'm done engaging with you. I don't find your responses intellectually honest. This is my first post in these forums, so I'm not sure on how this works, but I would appreciate it if you wouldn't comment again.

Hello pot, please meet kettle.

[EricE]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I think agnosticism is more "correct" because in reality, you can't know that God doesn't exist. Obviously an atheist/agnostic would say (with some justification) that you can't know He does exist.

I think both beliefs are fundamentally leaps of faith. 

There's a big misunderstanding about what atheism and agnosticism mean. Being an atheist simply means you do not believe a god exists. Where a theist believes does believe a god exists. Agnosticism is about knowledge (which is a subset of belief), or specifically about what you don't know.

So a gnostic atheist is one who asserts that no gods exist. (This is also known as hard atheism)
 

So:

A gnostic atheist is one asserts that no gods exist. (any decent skeptic has issues with this position as much as with theists)
An agnostic atheist (aka the soft atheism position) does not believe a god exists, but does not claim knowledge. (This is me!)
An agnostic theist believes a god exists, but does not claim knowledge.
A gnostic theist believes a god exits, and claims to have actual knowledge that this is true.

[EricE]

17 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

Then you are agnostic, not atheist, as your profile says? Because by declaring yourself atheist, you are saying God doesn't exist.

Nope. Being an atheist just means you don't believe a god exists. See my more detailed explanation of the difference below.

[Guest MormonGator]

12 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Hello pot, please meet kettle.

I see that argument a lot the "pot meet kettle" and while it holds some merit, it doesn't address the underlying issues.

IE-If I smoke three packs a day but tell someone not to smoke cigarettes, is that pot meet kettle? Maybe. But it's still good advice not to smoke.. Or "You shouldn't argue so much" Pot meet kettle! Um, that doesn't address the problem that you shouldn't argue much, does it there? That argument is a good way to move responsibility and not address the underlying problem.It's a way to wash hands. To think that "Oh, I've won here. I'm wonderful."  

Just pointing out someone is guilty of something doesn't justify bad behavior.  I see it so much too. What? You called me something? Pot meet kettle! I feel like I'm in fifth grade when I see that. 

Lol. Obviously not on you Anddenex. I've seen it so many times that it's become a pet peeve of mine.  

Edited August 12, 2016 by MormonGator

[EricE]

12 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Well...not necessarily, over the past few years there are many in different groups which consider themselves Atheist/Agnostic or Agnostic/Atheist. I have never understood the reasoning on how they can be both, but there are groups which specify as such.

I explained more below, but agnosticism/gnosticism describe knowledge, while theism/atheism describe beliefs. An atheist does not believe a god exists, while a theist does. An agnostic atheist/theist does not claim knowledge, while gnostic theist/atheists do.

[Guest MormonGator]

13 minutes ago, EricE said:

There's a big misunderstanding about what atheism and agnosticism mean. Being an atheist simply means you do not believe a god exists. Where a theist believes does believe a god exists. Agnosticism is about knowledge (which is a subset of belief), or specifically about what you don't know.

So a gnostic atheist is one who asserts that no gods exist. (This is also known as hard atheism)
 

So:

A gnostic atheist is one asserts that no gods exist. (any decent skeptic has issues with this position as much as with theists)
An agnostic atheist (aka the soft atheism position) does not believe a god exists, but does not claim knowledge. (This is me!)
An agnostic theist believes a god exists, but does not claim knowledge.
A gnostic theist believes a god exits, and claims to have actual knowledge that this is true.

 

Are you more of a David Hume "barely possible" agnostic, or an Ayn Rand "No way possible" atheist? 
 

Edited August 12, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest]

To muddy the waters more, I have family members who belong to atheist groups but describe themselves as secular humanists. 

To me it just all means they think I believe in fairy tales. 

[EricE]

4 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Are you more of a David Hume "barely possible" agnostic?  Just curious. 

I'm a big fan of Hume (even more so Russell), especially when he talks about how the more extraordinary the claim the more extraordinary the evidence required. But I don't know if I could label my atheism as just like anyone else's. I don't believe a god exists, and no one has ever been able to provide any actual evidence that would say the super natural is real. If someone were to provide reliable evidence for the truth of a god's existence, then I would change my mind. But until that evidence can be provide, the only rational position anyone can take is to reject the extraordinary claim.

[EricE]

7 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

To muddy the waters more, I have family members who belong to atheist groups but describe themselves as secular humanists. 

To me it just all means they think I believe in fairy tales. 

Humanism has nothing to do with a belief in a god. There are many Christians who are humanists.

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, EricE said:

I'm a big fan of Hume (even more so Russell), especially when he talks about how the more extraordinary the claim the more extraordinary the evidence required. But I don't know if I could label my atheism as just like anyone else's. I don't believe a god exists, and no one has ever been able to provide any actual evidence that would say the super natural is real. If someone were to provide reliable evidence for the truth of a god's existence, then I would change my mind. But until that evidence can be provide, the only rational position anyone can take is to reject the extraordinary claim.

History of Western Philosophy should be read by everyone.

I like David Hume, in particular his hardcore empiricism. Hence why I asked you before about experience. 

[EricE]

4 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

History of Western Philosophy should be read by everyone.

I like David Hume, in particular his hardcore empiricism. Hence why I asked you before about experience. 

Makes sense. And I'm impressed, not many LDS folks that I interact with have read Hume. Are you very familiar with Bertrand Russell?

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, EricE said:

Makes sense. And I'm impressed, not many LDS folks that I interact with have read Hume. Are you very familiar with Bertrand Russell?

No, I have no idea who either man is. Nope. No idea what you are talking about. I'm dumb as a rock and know nothin' and nothin'. 

You want to be impressed? Look at the grades I got in college for my philosophy classes. 

Edited August 12, 2016 by MormonGator