Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Ultima Weapon

The Atheist Moral Argument

110 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Wow How do you have hope? ,,,, i'll give ya"there not such thing as Karma ,,,,It s CAUSE & EFFECT..

maybe your leaving your self in that REAL narrow place? Like All your thoughts coming from one place Explore your options...****! I was just sayin.................

Karma is not cause and effect. It`s a personal desire to harm who has harmed you.

Hope is about getting past this type of thinking.

Edited by The Silver Thong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Luck" does not exist, nor is there such a thing as to be lucky. What we have is probabilities, sometimes going the way we want, sometimes not.

Karma is often seen as cause and effect, and in fact is the way the Buddha expressed it. You sow what you plant, and he took it further to mean that if you plant evil you sow evil. I am of the opinion that this is all much of an illusion, but like many illusions is nevertheless useful as a way to think about things. If you do evil, generally it comes back onto you, in the form of society's reaction, or maybe your own guilt, or maybe in that doing evil hardens you and changes you in ways that in the end bring on a comeuppance.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

K I see where your comin' from, sorta!? However , I do not take MY God as a BIG WHITE ELEPHANT,{ie Karma} Maybe you can take that thought and say " there is (+) & only (-) 's in,this Universe??? Copper top? No heaven no otherness?,.... But I Believe in One true God . /why ? are people so weird about sayin' the word GOD ??? I do not attend church...BFD!

It seems that you have a petty good head on your shoulders;so is it like , !st there was a mountain -then there is no mountain-then there is? what ever it is (or isn'what you believe...I feel that it is important that u believe in something. / this is only my 2 cents , ?with change... and I don't care to convert anyone....

Hey I would NeVer play 'the master" on any one ....cause they ALways walk behind... not to offend ...PLease! yes , I.ve had my glimpse as too my Mortallity........ have ya checked yours? Jut a Question... I do agree what you take into your hands -you take into your heart . Now their are alot of Bad things happening to good people & childern / ..I feel they are blessed... luck has no

cradintchials here .............. Ever ...

(can't spell)

Edited by rrainny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Luck" does not exist, nor is there such a thing as to be lucky. What we have is probabilities, sometimes going the way we want, sometimes not.

Karma is often seen as cause and effect, and in fact is the way the Buddha expressed it. You sow what you plant, and he took it further to mean that if you plant evil you sow evil. I am of the opinion that this is all much of an illusion, but like many illusions is nevertheless useful as a way to think about things. If you do evil, generally it comes back onto you, in the form of society's reaction, or maybe your own guilt, or maybe in that doing evil hardens you and changes you in ways that in the end bring on a comeuppance.

If Karma was a real thing we would have a lot less evil. Thats just my opinion. Guilt is weapon to use on others or to use on ones self. It`s about what or who that guilt comes from directed from the stigma of what guilt is and who is directing it. I feel bad for some of my actions but I could never use guilt or Karma to explain misfortune. It`s counter preductive as I don`t know a human that has never done everything right. That would mean Karma could mean anything and to stress over it as a guilt of something does no good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

snapback.pngrrainny, on 28 March 2013 - 11:46 PM, said:

Wow How do you have hope? ,,,, i'll give ya"there not such thing as Karma ,,,,It s CAUSE & EFFECT..

maybe your leaving your self in that REAL narrow place? Like All your thoughts coming from one place Explore your options...****! I was just sayin.................not to offend

***********************************************************************************

silver thong , ,,,, .................AS FOR ME dear one. What say YOU???you said { Oh yeah*Karma is not cause and effect.

you said;

It`s a personal desire to harm who has harmed you.} humm ...a little negitive, u could have said helpin out some one that

righted you .?;****NO- that is insiigdiental.... you are wrong ...

Hope is about getting past this type of thinking. / * what type of thinking dear?*

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You don't get my 2 cents ...or a tip or a clue.. ya think you can come chiming in dear one, and solve or prove me wrong ..

with Very Very wrong Information?

.

I wasn't talkin' to any set person ,...

normally I'd leave this type of stupidity alone .... however, you threw it out at me , and had nothing??????

STILL !

msKatie B ,

your fairy god mother,

..

!Ps are you goin to plegerize i or 2 books ????

Edited by rrainny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Can you state where Karma is a wish or a hope for anothers good fortune. I have hope for humanity just not in a supernatural way.

Karma if you do good, good will become you. If you do wrong Karma will punish you. Same old same old really. Its the golden rule. Don`t make me mad at you and I will like you lol

Edited by The Silver Thong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If Karma was a real thing we would have a lot less evil. Thats just my opinion. Guilt is weapon to use on others or to use on ones self. It`s about what or who that guilt comes from directed from the stigma of what guilt is and who is directing it. I feel bad for some of my actions but I could never use guilt or Karma to explain misfortune. It`s counter preductive as I don`t know a human that has never done everything right. That would mean Karma could mean anything and to stress over it as a guilt of something does no good.

Well if you avoid the Christian/Muslim notion of sin and think of good and bad as just being helpful/hurtful, one realizes that almost everything we do has pluses and minuses connected to it, so that our moral life becomes one of constantly choosing the act with the greatest good and the least harm rather than trying to choose perfection.

Now I don't think luck is real, and therefore our karma has nothing to do with whether we are born blind or some such thing. What karma means instead is that as we do things in life the consequences come back on us, evil consequences for evil and good for good. It also means that as we make these choices, the actual choices we make change our nature, for the better or for the worse, and if we are reborn we will take this with us.

Edited by Frank Merton
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree......................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if you avoid the Christian/Muslim notion of sin and think of good and bad as just being helpful/hurtful, one realizes that almost everything we do has pluses and minuses connected to it, so that our moral life becomes one of constantly choosing the act with the greatest good and the least harm rather than trying to choose perfection.

Now I don't think luck is real, and therefore our karma has nothing to do with whether we are born blind or some such thing. What karma means instead is that as we do things in life the consequences come back on us, evil consequences for evil and good for good. It also means that as we make these choices, the actual choices we make change our nature, for the better or for the worse, and if we are reborn we will take this with us.

What if I factor out all the above and go with out morality religion would not exsist. Humans had morals far before the invention of a god let alone religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about what early humans had or didn't have. Morality and religion and gods are all things that have come down to us from the earliest times.

It think morality, or at least ethics, can be derived rationally from the first principles of compassion and equality, as Kant did, but do these first principles need religion? The earliest "gods" were probably animist personifications of nature and as such had little to do with ethics, but who really knows?

Most of us seem to have an inbuilt desire or ambition to do what is right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morality in humans can almost be certian as we are still here and as a social creature. The concept of a god came with the sun, the concept of a man ruling a god came with the assumption there was one. Man created god or many gods and we speak in his or her`s or it name name knowing nothing but what I would call primates in todays terms. Gods always change, one day Thor and the next Zues then we have Jesus. We are on the verge of a god called man. So imperfect but yet the creator and killer of gods we are the gods we imagine. How we imagine them is up to those that creat them and want to portray them.

I nore anyone has the right to defeat them but the sands in the hour glass. Sad really as we have to put up with such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Karma does not exsist never has never will. All it is, is a falacy that those who have done wrong will have done wrong onto them. Those that believe in Karma default as just as it`s only used as a personal type of revenge and hoping ill will. Using Karma as some means of some imagined justice is like pointing a gun at your own head and saying I`ll show you.

Karma is left for those that hope nasty crap happens to those that wronged them so be warned believing in Karma could only come back to harm you for even believing in it.

It doesn't have to exist, and I never stated it did, the comment was in respects to the golden rule and its origins,

Edit >>>

Karma is a concept that forces you to have responsibility for your actions, the consequences don't have to be real, Its a mental process much like the golden rule, slightly different, but trying to understand how your actions impact upon others positive or negative by imagining the same or similar positive or negative action being returned imo is very similar in concept

Edited by ciriuslea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont believe the bible literally but the bible is quite clear. There IS no eternal torture. There is a choce between eternal life of body and soul and a final death of body and soul. The rest is a particular catholic construction and is not biblically based. So the god of the bible actually says, "Believe in me and have eternal life Do not beolieve in me and die "God actually says " The wages of sin are death" Nothing more. God also promises that all si will be removed from the universe. That can't be done if sinners are eternally existing in "hell"

Mathew 25:41- “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

Mathew 25:46 - “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Jude 1:7 - "just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire,[a] serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire."

But let me guess, what you quote should be taken literally but the above is all figurative and 'metaphorical language'. I don't have an issue with thinking that the unsaved just die, but what is absolutely false is that the bible is 'clear' on this assuming we're not cherrypicking.

But suppose you do believe in hell. Not one human has to go there. God has already forgiven every human being their original sin and wil forgive any transgression we ask him to if we are sincere. Again, it is entirely our choice as to whether we go to hell, supposing such a place does exist. NO one has to go there if they live a life which wont send them there, and every human is capable of living such a life using christslife and teachings as a template. Because we are human god forgives our human weakness but if we choose to do wrong then we cop the consequences( in life and natural consequence and in god's system of justice)

I don't believe in hell and I don't believe in god, I'm commenting on what I think the repercussions are if I assume temporarily that certain statements by believers about what they believe are true. I don't see 'justice' in god's system if we include eternal punishment, exactly the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look man. If a person can believe Book of Mormon and the scientology creation myth, he/she can believe anything. That's what terrifies me about human nature.

If he can believe in Santa Claus, Easter Bunny & Tooth Fairy, he can believe any story told. And we are all conditioned that way from youth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said that some behaviouralists misinterpret this and others misunderstand it. Some want to redifine the term moralities to include behaviours driven by biological and enveronmental imperatives but you cant actully do tha tand get away with it. Such people from wah ti can research , tend to be reacting to the american creationist movement, and responding that our behaviours are ALL a product of evolution Unfortunatley when it comes to intellectual constructs like morality or ethics this aint so while our organic brains are a product of evolution our mentla capacities are self sustaining and innovative and NOT directly resultant from evolutionary forces.

So you are a behavioralist? What expertise do you specifically have in this scientific area, what research have you conducted? Saying it 'ain't so' doesn't make it not so. Please provide a scientific citation that demonstrates that our 'mental capacities are not directly resultant from evolutionary forces'.

. BUT human morality is based on reason, rationality, choice and purpose, which other animals cannot concpetualise verbalise commuincate ot act upon. I can act altruistically with conscious understanding and intent, to a person 5000 kilometers away from me because i choose to, based on beliefs, values, intellectual reason, and rational thought

It is a matter of significant debate whether we have any more ability to make 'choices' than any other animal.

No other animals can form those concepts, understand them or act on them with conscious intent.

Scientists KNOW this is so because of their study of animal language and also of their neurological abilities.

I think you are overstating what scientists know. There's a difference between having insufficient evidence to support a proposition and evidence that definitively shows a proposition to be false. Please provide your evidence for the latter. If you think that crows for example make and use tools without rational thought, please demonstrate how you've proven that humans use an entirely different process than crows.

All that scientists are saying is this..... That some animlas display behaviours which, in humans, we might understand are based on human moralities. Second, that there are some behaviours with the same appearance and outcome as those driven by human morality in MANY animals including humans, because of the common evolutionary benefits from them.

So your position is that animals can display behaviors like altruism and social cooperation but they arrived at these behaviors differently than human animals? Quite a coincidence.

But humans ARE NOT resoricted by, or limited to, our evolved reactions and responses In ANYTHING, and havent been for over 50000 years and probably at least 100000 years. Since that time when we reched our current level of slef awarenes and language capabilities, we choose values, beliefs, and moralities, based on our sapient self awareness and our linguistic and mental capabilities.

No one has shown that our choices are not simply the result of deterministic physical, electrical, and chemical processes in our brains, which is what you assert is essentially going on with all other animals. I think you are being excessive with what we 'KNOW' concerning an area of scientific research, animal cognition and intelligence, in which a lot of research is being done. I've read nothing by any actual scientist that we can 'know' how animals think to the degree you are asserting here, quite the opposite. Most scientists emphasize the tentativeness of their findings, which is wise given how often current scientific opinions are shown to be incorrect or need revision. A pity that apologists do not take this same tack, especially when discussing scientific findings.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morality in humans can almost be certian as we are still here and as a social creature.

Yes, just like other non-human social creatures exhibit moral behaviour, especially in the form of reciprocal actions; you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. I continue to be amazed that many people believe only homo sapiens sapiens are moral agents. I guess that's because it makes it so much easier to treat animals as property to do with as we will. That's the basis of Christian theology when it comes to animals, they are there for our use, they have no self interests. Which of course is wrong.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I would have supposed that religious believers would use the moral argument against atheists by asserting that a society built on the groundwork of a religion instils a person with a moral grounding and moral compass to a much greater degree than a secularised atheist society based on materialism could hope to achieve. Organised religions often come under criticism but at least they imbue a moral code based on the principles of the faith into a society at large something which increasingly secularised western culture is failing to do.

If morality is relative and not a universal constant can we as human beings be trusted without the necessary apparatus which religion provides to implement a fair and just moral code?

Arthur C Clarke said "One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion."

Edited by stillvoice
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a couple of things I think you're mistaken about.

Firstly, I don't believe too many atheists believe there is a moral argument against the existence of a god. The reverse is certainly true. Many theologists have used the existence of morality to try to prove that God exists. All one can say is that a materialistic view of morality removes any need for a god to exist. It's not the same as saying that it can be used to prove gods don't exist.

Secondly. Having a materialistic worldview may lead one to reject ideas of absolute morality (an arguable point), but that does not then equate to a belief that morality doesn't exist. It clearly does, only an atheist would favour a natural explanation. I think you make the mistake of equating relative morality with no morality. They're not the same thing.

As an Atheist/Agnostic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mnnn! But what if, to take an example, you do not enjoy being caned on the bottom, but someone else does. Should you follow your desire not to be caned (or to cane someone and inflict pain), or the other person's desire to be caned, because for them, pain is pleasure?. (Watching a movie on the life of carl jung and his mistress, who apparently had such a prediliction for sexual gratification, prompted me to use this example.) She used to be beaten by her father and found it arousing. THe psychologicla pressure of dealing with such an "unnatural" gratification came out in behaviours which led her parents to jung for treatment He eventually discovered the cause and released her from her self loathing and she became a psycho therapits therslef. She still, however, sought sexual gratification from being "spanked," and jung involved himslef in this as part of a long time sexual relationship with her.

Is it healthier to "cure" or alter such a desire as unhealthy, or to accept its nature/causations and submit to it? (One of the disagreements between jung and freud lay in the application of psychotherapy beyond understanding the causes of people's behaviours)

Ugggg I did not know that movie was out yet... It seems I get further and further out if the loop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have supposed that religious believers would use the moral argument against atheists by asserting that a society built on the groundwork of a religion instils a person with a moral grounding and moral compass to a much greater degree than a secularised atheist society based on materialism could hope to achieve. Organised religions often come under criticism but at least they imbue a moral code based on the principles of the faith into a society at large something which increasingly secularised western culture is failing to do.

If morality is relative and not a universal constant can we as human beings be trusted without the necessary apparatus which religion provides to implement a fair and just moral code?

Arthur C Clarke said "One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion."

It's funny.... Cultural realativisim in ethics... Seams well.... Like there could be anything that goes. But if we are to be a mathematical empirical society... There is a very powerful ethic that arises from the mathematics of economics ( real economics).

As I learn more, as I pay attention more, proper economic theory actually coincides with awesome ethics. Mabey the universe has to balance choice with utility. From the ultra high perspective... How do you come closest to doing right by a mass of free thinking sentient beings?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And lots of people need the fear of consequence of civil laws and of social disapproval to make them behave. Perhaps only few people possess a logically derived, personal philosophical /ethical position on everything, and use logic and discipline to stick to it, always; whether under observation and part of a society, or alone on a desert island.

My personal ethics and moralities were worked out from wide reading, deep thinking, and studies of philosophy and logic, when I was an atheist. I had to change only a few minor things as a theist who lives with god in side me and around me. For example I gave up eating, drinking and taking anything which could harm or reduce the potentiality of my body or mind.

In part that was because most religious principles evolved as social principles to benefit society. As society changes the reeligious principles must change jus tas civil laws mus tchange to reflect the new realities of an evolved society, but some truths, such as what constitutes a good diet and healthy lifestyle, or how to treat people, remain the same.

That's good that you used your religion as a way to take care of yourself. I have always been an Atheist/Agnostic and I do not drink, do drugs and I am a vegetarian and follow a healthy lifestyle which includes regular/consistent exercise. All by personal choice because it is what is best for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It's funny.... Cultural realativisim in ethics... Seams well.... Like there could be anything that goes. But if we are to be a mathematical empirical society... There is a very powerful ethic that arises from the mathematics of economics ( real economics).

As I learn more, as I pay attention more, proper economic theory actually coincides with awesome ethics. Mabey the universe has to balance choice with utility. From the ultra high perspective... How do you come closest to doing right by a mass of free thinking sentient beings?

As 'sentient beings' we each should extract such secrets and comforts as our nature (and the nature of the universe) enables us to find. This is assuming that the universe has any vested interest in sentient life at all?

If all human life is reduced to mere economics then communism and its derivatives are the only ideology which have an intrinsic morality in my opinion.

Edited by stillvoice
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Karma was a real thing we would have a lot less evil. Thats just my opinion. Guilt is weapon to use on others or to use on ones self. It`s about what or who that guilt comes from directed from the stigma of what guilt is and who is directing it. I feel bad for some of my actions but I could nevresponseser use guilt or Karma to explain misfortune. It`s counter preductive as I don`t know a human that has never done everything right. That would mean Karma could mean anything and to stress over it as a guilt of something does no good.

In my opinion, karma is a real and physical force, with two real elements . First there is the physical "natural law' of cause and effect or consequence Every actiion causes reactions,. A "good " person will act in a way that promotes productive/creative responses to him, by those around him. A "bad' person will promote more destructrucve responses.

Second there is the psychological effect. All humans have a level of self awareness which creates psychological feed backs and conflicts Thus a person acting against the wishes of their community will always have a physcological responseThis might not be guilt, but a fear of being caught or of consequence. This will prevent tranquility /peace of mind cause fear, and also force them to act in ways which require stress and effort to avoid detection.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if I factor out all the above and go with out morality religion would not exsist. Humans had morals far before the invention of a god let alone religion.

No. Human morality evolved in tandem with spiritual belief and religious practice. One cant exist without the other because they come from same evolved abilities of the human mind. A modern human can be moral without being religious but the ability to be either is inseperable All human moralities and religious spiritual beliefs grew from several intellectual realisations including; self awareness, the effect of consequence, and the recognition of the rights of others. Unless one recognises that others have the same feelings and rights as yourself there can be no sense of morality. Unless one recognises thats one's actions have good or bad effects on others, and can understand and predict such effects, again, there can be no such thing as morality as humans know it..

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's good that you used your religion as a way to take care of yourself. I have always been an Atheist/Agnostic and I do not drink, do drugs and I am a vegetarian and follow a healthy lifestyle which includes regular/consistent exercise. All by personal choice because it is what is best for me.

And for me. And of course this is how and why many religious beliefs evolved. Humans recognise "best practice" when they see it and codify it into both civil laws and also into religious beliefs and codes. Latest studies show HUGE benefits to being a vegetarian, from 10-20 % reduction in things like cancer, diabetes, and heart disease, to a 40 % reduction in ones creation of green house gasses, and a very significant improvement in life span.

The ongoing results of a new large-scale study illuminate the health benefits of adhering to a vegetarian diet.

Loma Linda University’s School of Public Health recently released some of the findings from its current Adventist Health Study-2, and the results make a convincing argument for plant-based eating. The study is currently following roughly 96,000 Seventh-day Adventists with a variety of dietary habits, although many Adventists are vegetarian or vegan due to religious belief. Vegetarian Adventist men were found to live to an average age of 83.3, 9.5 years longer than other Californian citizens, and women to 85.7, 6.1 years longer than their omnivorous counterparts. Additionally, the study found that men who consume beef more than three times per week are more than twice as likely to die of heart disease, and women with a diet high in meat and cheese have a more than doubled risk of developing ovarian cancer. Loma Linda University includes more details and statistics on its official website for the study.

http://vegnews.com/articles/page.do?pageId=5051&catId=8

My wife is a seventh day adventist (And actually at church atm ) so i declare a bias here. But while my dietary habits have a lot to do with her, and also with general biblical principles, they also follow the principles and recommendations of my cardiologists who are among the best in the world. They also reflect my ecological awareness as a geographer and steward of the earth, and hence my desire to lessen my environmental footprint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.