If it were true that there IS no god, then would reality be any different as it is now? That is, do you think that people would not have CREATED religion?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 1:04 pmThe problem is that Atheism has no necessary definition of "better." The Nazis thought Germany was "better" without Jews. The Southern Democrats thought the South was "better" with slave plantations. Pedophiles believe life is "better" with a ready supply of child victims.
Atheism has no singular position on "better." "Better" is whatever you think you want, because Atheism itself doesn't even attempt to answer the question of what "better" might be.
It has only one concern: that there should be no God. Beyond that, it's a total blank, leading to nihil, nothing in particular.
No. I'm guessing you want me to bite on some negative value you interpret 'nothing' to refer to in some moral sense of 'evil'?Just because the reality may turn out to be less satisfyingly 'relative', how does it follow that we cannot BE moral? In fact, wouldn't the evidence of different religions with different moral systems suffice to suggest the 'relative' reality?Essentially, this means "There is truth to the claim that that objectively nothing has value." Do you really agree with that?I've been atheist all my life and am also belief there is truth to 'Nihilism',
Who is the arbiter of the moral commandments of these Gods? Aren't they always dictated THROUGH select authoritarians of some fallible human being claiming to have a direct line to God?
The fact that people hold common morals in groups only proves that we CAN have morals that are not actually founded upon some defaulted FAITH but is in fact a reality. But furthermore, since some people differ on their beliefs, also proves THAT morals are relative. These are etiquette rules we learn from out parents and other authority figures. It makes us deluded into thinking the sense of values we hold inside are somehow universal. They are not. And I can prove it by pointing out even the differences of 'Christians' who are relatively more poor than others. The wealthier ones hold a 'conservative' set of beliefs, like that 'abortion is evil', 'we are born evil', or 'we should have a right to all own a gun.'
You either don't know animals or default to treating them as mere meat bags. I had a cat who had proven she learned moral rules WITHOUT a need to punish but mimic my example: I found a wounded bird and brought her in the house and was able to leave my cat to watch her without concern of her jumping to some interpretation that the bird is to be killed. I also had a gerbil who wanted to befriend the cat but mistook a gesture of welcoming: the gerbil would nibble without literal biting to get attention but when he did this to my cat who was curious to meet him, she got an opposite reaction and thought the nibble was an attack. She didn't attack him but jumped away in 'fear'. The gerbil from then on begun to mock attack or lunge at her as if to say, "fuck you". Morality is equally learned among animals.Apparently you must. For "animal constructs" do not have any moral duty at all attached to them. If the "animal" decides to do differently, it can; and there's no reason at all it shouldn't.as in morality has no universal existence and is a mere animal relative construct.
So are you saying that if we make laws but your religion differs on the 'relative' nature of them, that the religions should ACT upon their own moral system regardless? Should you kill the Atheists too as has and still is being done in many places in the world BY religious moral believers such as yourself?The "rule of law" in various parts of the world's said, or now says the following: that women are worth only half what a man is; that a rape victim deserves stoning; that women can murder their children at will; that children can be enslaved and traded; that we should kill infidels; that we should own slaves; that we should break and bind women's feet; that we should put the elderly on ice floes; that we should eat each other...The 'rule of law' through the management systems, like government, act AS what defines morality through negotiating. It makes it relative when there are differences in people's genetic and environmental inheritances. The more 'equal' these are, the more in common we share common morals.
Need I go on? There's no way, under Atheism, to know which of these is more "right" or "wrong" than any other. The "rule of law" just says whatever the local prejudices are, because there's no objective truth underwriting any of these particular codes. And when society changes again, and says something hideous, we'll have no grounds for protest, because it will then be "the rule of law."
Is terrorism not then just an 'Atheist' type of interpretation that is against the religions of those who are rightfully attacking at us heathens in the name of their God?
I differ from most Atheists who DO hold some belief in some universal morality. But I believe they are just mistaken by HOW they misinterpret what this means. It confuses the 'fitness' of virtuous behavior as what evolves and is a slip into the transference of the meaning of "fitness" by evolution to mean that which matches to the environment.I'm a fan of Michael Shermer, who is one of those atheists most interested in defending that morals exist without gods,
I'm afraid Shermer doesn't even understand the question, let alone the answer.
[I accidentally deleted your last quote when highlighting, something that these damn boxes won't highlight without dragging. It accelerates the scroll and if you stop too fast, it erases or mixed up the content. So the following is a response to that and in particular,
"Says Darwin himself, if a feature cannot present a definite survival advantage it cannot be selected-for by evolution itself. "
Darwin would not say this and is counter to his whole argument of "Natural Selection". This is the concept that most living things die or get killed off more often than not. When something is favored by its environment for whatever reasons, good or bad, the pool of traits that get passed on through the species takes on those characteristics for NOT being killed off or ELIMINATED by things like one lacking those qualities. This is what made the Social Darwinist of those like the Nazis (not the only ones by far) opt to eliminate others they deemed less 'fitting' to their new world ideal.
For example, if by chance some song became popular for fans, this 'environmental' accident might entice others to admire the mere look of the person, what they wear, and how they behave. It doesn't matter what 'values' these may hold. Then, if people were to select out of some lineup of people with this personality or of someone who is similar in appearance, etc, the opposite sex attraction favors such a person and selects out all other options. THIS is what evolution means by 'fit' to the environment. It can be any stupid fad that has no real value OTHER than something artificial to some time and place that creates a climate of 'favor' for some while be against others.
HOW or why are you imposing the Social Darwinist view of 'fitness' as representative of Darwin's meanings?