Atheists Wager

[John V]

A good pot doesn't bitch and moan about its condition.

[CliveStaples]

Clive really wants his god to be the staple of morality

At any rate, these "wagers" don't really have an impact on the real world. Most people don't know what Pascal's wager is, let alone this "atheist wager". I put quotes on that because atheism does not provide any morality standards, its just the refusal of that magical being some people are poised to believe.

Oh, no, that's not what I'm getting at. I don't think that morality is a subset of theology--that is, that the only way to get to objective moral values is by way of theism.

Maybe that's true, and maybe it isn't--I am strongly inclined to think that it is false--but it's not what I'm getting at.


The point I'm making is that you can't get an "ought" (prescriptive values) from an "is" (understanding the physical states of the universe). Science doesn't get you to morality. No less an atheist than David Hume argued the same.

[Norfolk And Chance]

How do you know that being kind and helpful is "good"? Can you cite a scientific experiment whose outcome demonstrated that being kind and helpful is "good"?

Why should you prefer "positive" outcomes to "negative" ones?

Ooooh, I know what. Let's have god, as a judge. We are mere humans and as "good" and "bad" are mere concepts that mean different things to different people, then you need an ultimate authority above all people to decide. Therefore god is real.

Am I getting warm as to where you are headed?

One small problem - there is no way to contact this authority for answers as to what is good or bad, so he's a fat lot of fucking use isn't he? There's nothing in the bible about where pumping the atmosphere full of co2 is "good" or "bad" for example, and that leaves us to examine the evidence and leaves the good/bad decision squarely on our own shoulders. As ever.

Take your meaningless, invisible, uncontactable judge and fuck off, thanks

[Ben Davis]

...you can't get an "ought" (prescriptive values) from an "is" (understanding the physical states of the universe). Science doesn't get you to morality. No less an atheist than David Hume argued the same.

Sorry to derail but... not this again! I hate this attempt at limiting the power of the scientific method because it's intellectually dishonest given our current understanding of how humans make judgements.

The best way to get to an 'ought' is from an 'is'. We know this instinctively and practice it's application every day.

[Mister Agenda]

A good pot doesn't bitch and moan about its condition.

Well, we're not pots, it's just an analogy. It's not original to me, I think I read it some old book.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

What is a "good" life? What does it mean to make a place "better"?

I don't know in any ultimate sense if there is one. I just know I like somethings over other things. I like existence over non-existence. I like pleasure over pain. I like order over chaos. etc. "Better" is whatever makes life closer to how you want it to be.

Ultimately it's all (apparently) pretty pointless but who cares.

[CliveStaples]

Ooooh, I know what. Let's have god, as a judge. We are mere humans and as "good" and "bad" are mere concepts that mean different things to different people, then you need an ultimate authority above all people to decide. Therefore god is real.

Am I getting warm as to where you are headed?

One small problem - there is no way to contact this authority for answers as to what is good or bad, so he's a fat lot of fucking use isn't he? There's nothing in the bible about where pumping the atmosphere full of co2 is "good" or "bad" for example, and that leaves us to examine the evidence and leaves the good/bad decision squarely on our own shoulders. As ever.

Take your meaningless, invisible, uncontactable judge and fuck off, thanks

I didn't say anything about a "meaningless, invisible, uncontactable judge". Are you going to criticize anything I actually said, or just keep tilting at strawmen?

---

Sorry to derail but... not this again! I hate this attempt at limiting the power of the scientific method because it's intellectually dishonest given our current understanding of how humans make judgements.

The best way to get to an 'ought' is from an 'is'. We know this instinctively and practice it's application every day.

Can you go into more detail? You're not really giving me any reasons to think that your claim is true, other than you simply making the claim.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

...

Sorry to derail but... not this again! I hate this attempt at limiting the power of the scientific method because it's intellectually dishonest given our current understanding of how humans make judgements.

The best way to get to an 'ought' is from an 'is'. We know this instinctively and practice it's application every day.

Can you go into more detail? You're not really giving me any reasons to think that your claim is true, other than you simply making the claim.

I think he's referring to something like this: It is the case that a certain course of action will lead to a certain desired result, therefore you ought do that action. If you value animal life, and you are about to run over an animal with your car, then you ought to step on the brake pedal because that is the best course of action in that moment to save the animal's life.

Of course, this is all dependent on what your values are.

[Minimalist]

What does it mean to make a place "better"?

Evicting the jesus freaks would be a good start.

[Norfolk And Chance]

I didn't say anything about a "meaningless, invisible, uncontactable judge".

I never said you did, those are my words.

I do however believe that that you were asking how we could know what is "good" and what is "bad" because it is so subjective, thus leaving an opening to bring your god boy in as a judge of good and bad. You may not have said that, but I suspect only because you were never given the chance to evolve the thread in that direction...tell me I'm wrong, man.

Do you not believe that god is the moral judge of us? The authority to say what is "good", and what is "bad"? Do you not believe this?

Are you going to criticize anything I actually said, or just keep tilting at strawmen?

Strawmen are the way forward, I learned it from theists.