...frantically trying to avoid the inevitable final outcome, which is that it will spectacularly commit suicide. — Tarskian
Well, if you stick to such straw men then this conversation won't go anywhere — Tom Storm
even if you grant there might be gods you can't demonstrate which one is real or what god's moral system is. — Tom Storm
Sounds like fantasizing on your part, to me.
Do you see yourself as someone likely to commit suicide if you came to have an atheist perspective? If so, do you think that might just be a personal issue you have? — wonderer1
Europe no longer needed God as the source for all morality, value, or order in the universe; philosophy and science were capable of doing that for us.
Nietzsche believed that the removal of this system put most people at the risk of despair or meaninglessness.
For some time now our whole European culture has been moving as toward a catastrophe.
Absurdism is the philosophical theory that the universe is irrational and meaningless.
The three responses discussed in the traditional absurdist literature are suicide, religious belief in a higher purpose, and rebellion against the absurd.
The following view is ascribed to Nietzsche: — Tarskian
I don’t blame you for ending the conversation. It’s actually is an example of the point I was making. — Fire Ologist
Nietzche having made predictions about the future based on his limited perspective isn't something I am all that interested in. — wonderer1
Suppose a substantial portion of our fellow social primates can't cope emotionally with having an atheistic perspective. Do you recognize that that doesn't have any bearing on whether God exists? — wonderer1
Well I understand you don’t believe in god or religion, — Fire Ologist
:up: :up:All the religious person can do is interpret scripture or respond from personal perspectives regarding how they 'imagine' god wants them to behave. — Tom Storm
... then (a) "God" is not an objective fact that is either directly or indirectly observed.If we grantthat there isobjectivity ... — Fire Ologist
As per Plato's Euthyphro, 'morality is objective' because (a) "God" says so and not that (a) "God" says so because –independent of all subjects including (any) "God" – it is objective? :eyes:God serving as judge of moral objectivity
Your confusion, in part, comes from equivocating, or conflating, "object" (ontology) and "objective" (epistemology), Fire Ologist, which is typical of p0m0s / idealists / platonists. :sparkle:I believe those of us who think every “object” we take up is ONLY constructed by ourselves, are just wrong, because there is an objective reality with mind-independent distinctions in it.
I.e. assert without argument or non-arbitrary grounds. :roll:This is because I believe ..
Nietzsche called one of his books “beyond good and evil” and belittled those with a “will to truth” as lying to themselves, and said “God is dead” to make his point thoroughly. — Fire Ologist
By destroying other people's hope, they cause untold damage. The step from unbeliever to satanically evil is very small. All one needs to do, is to project one's own despair onto others. It even works because misery loves company. — Tarskian
By destroying people's freedom and ability to think, theism can cause untold damage. — Tom Storm
:halo: :up:By destroying people's freedom and ability to think, theism can cause untold damage. The step from believer to satanically evil is very small. All one needs to do is project one's own nihilism and religious absolutism onto others. It even works because fanaticism craves converts. — Tom Storm
We can debate what is right and wrong and we, as Christians, can invoke god's name, but we don't have any certain way to establish how god wants us to behave. ' — Tom Storm
All the religious person can do is interpret scripture or respond from personal perspectives regarding how they 'imagine' god wants them to behave.
Again - this is not about the nature of theism or atheism, it's about the nature of moral systems which can help but be pragmatic, adaptive and evolving. — Tom Storm
I agree we don’t have any certain way (that comes from anyone else but our own selves) to establish how God wants us to behave. God doesn’t send everyone text messages. How we each decide to actually behave and what we actually do is for each of us alone, even alone from God. So I can sit with that part of the quote.
I also agree that when we are together talking about how we might behave, building moral systems together, we struggle to interpret the words and traditions. And this debate among even members of the same religion, is really the same activity (just a different subject) as people discussing the best government or best economy, or even the best interpretation of any data into any system. — Fire Ologist
Morals =/= laws; your question doesn't make sense.[W]hy make moral laws we all should follow if there is no such thing as laws we all should follow? — Fire Ologist
Based on Abrahamic, Hindi, pantheonic Greco-Roman-Egyptian-Babylonian-Persian-Mesoamerican-Aboriginal traditions, I understand theism as consisting of [at least] the following claims:
(1) at least one ultimate mystery
(2) created existence,
(3) intervenes in – causes changes (which cannot be accounted for otherwise) to – the universe
(4) and is morally worthy of worship.
Cite any deity-tradition, sir, that you consider 'theistic' and that does not conceptualize its (highest) deity with these attributes, or claims. :chin: — 180 Proof
[W]hy make moral laws we all should follow if there is no such thing as laws we all should follow?
— Fire Ologist
Morals =/= laws; your question doesn't make sense. — 180 Proof
I’m not an expert on living the atheist life, but I didn’t always believe in God. And it was liberating. But also seemed incapable of addressing the bigger questions that didn’t go away. If I stayed atheist, I wouldn’t have come back to seeking answers, and more to the point, wouldn’t be talking about it with anyone else.
That’s the illogical part to me. If three people agree there is no god, there is no objective truth, there is no access to reality as it must be for all, then they should also agree that they have no idea whether each of them mean or agreed on the same thing - collaboration in philosophy and ethics becomes pointless.
Now that you've become a theist, you still aren't looking for answers. Instead of looking for answers and think critically, you assumed that the answers are about being an atheist or theist, and that objective truth is contingent on being one of those. — night912
[W]hy make moral laws we all should follow if there is no such thing as laws we all should follow?
Morals =/= laws; your question doesn't make sense.
— 180 Proof — 180 Proof
I don't believe in "God" ... and, because there are objective truths, I'm a moral naturalist. — 180 Proof
Cite any deity-tradition, sir, that you consider 'theistic' and that does not conceptualize its (highest) deity with these attributes, or claims. :chin: — 180 Proof
Non sequitur. It was you, Panta, who asserted without argument that my sine qua non claims of theism, which are easily falsified (i.e. atheism), is "ad hoc" or that I "made it up" and so I'm requesting of you to put up – respond with a citation that counters my concept of theism (yeah, we both know you cannot :sweat:) – or shut up.Show me where this thread is about the defining attributes of "theism". — Pantagruel
I definitely do not agree with your "some people" as my previous posts point out. Maybe below (A, B, C1, C2) my reasoning will be clearer to you.Some people who don’t believe in God, also say things like “there is no truth” or “there are no absolutes.” — Fire Ologist
Yes, see (B) below.So something is there for you to work out a morality.
which can be demonstrated using sound arguments. No doubt, open to discussion and debate. "Why bother?" you ask. To expose the flaws in the argument and explore via thought-experiments / scenarios moral naturalism's (as conceived here) pragmatic plausibility because we are thinking adults instead of dogmatic or supertitious children.• humans are natural beings which are imbedded in and inseparable from nature and its regular processes (re: objective facticity);
• natural beings suffer from what they do to and what they fail to do for themselves or others;
• humans know what makes humans (and other natural beings like humans) suffer and therefore how to prevent or reduce human (natural beings') suffering (re: disvalue);
• virtues are habits reinforced by preventing and reducing suffering (re: disvalue) whereas vices are habits reinforced by neglecting or increasing suffering (re: disvalue);
• human flourishing means maximizing virtues and minimizing vices)
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.