(January 23, 2017 at 2:46 pm)Cephus Wrote:

(January 23, 2017 at 11:25 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: You mean like: Who am I? Why am I here? How should I live my life?
I don't know about you but those seem like the only questions that really matter. If there are no such things (no evidence, right?) as personal identity, purpose, or values  then I guess you're right.

Because those are all subjective questions. 

If they are, are you living your life consistent with the logical conclusions of that opinion? Seems to me that a lot of AF members have rejected Christianity yet still try to justify their belief that human equality and personal autonomy are valid secular moral principles. Of course atheists can be good without god, but they cannot logically claim to be good without referencing some transcendent source of the good.

Practicality would be one reason. Self interest.

(January 23, 2017 at 3:15 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: Practicality would be one reason. Self interest.

Sometimes the right thing to do is both impractical and dangerous, like helping a persecuted minority escape from a genocidal regime.

Not a smart idea if you want to remain in the genepool, no.

Neo-Scholastic Wrote:Of course atheists can be good without god, but they cannot logically claim to be good without referencing some transcendent source of the good.

That's some ludicrously obvious bullshit right there.

(January 23, 2017 at 3:08 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(January 23, 2017 at 2:46 pm)Cephus Wrote: Because those are all subjective questions. 

If they are, are you living your life consistent with the logical conclusions of that opinion? Seems to me that a lot of AF members have rejected Christianity yet still try to justify their belief that human equality and personal autonomy are valid secular moral principles. Of course atheists can be good without god, but they cannot logically claim to be good without referencing some transcendent source of the good.

Why are they not valid if humans get to make the rules (because they are subjective)?  Why can we not decide to be good?

---

(January 23, 2017 at 3:19 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(January 23, 2017 at 3:15 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: Practicality would be one reason. Self interest.

Sometimes the right thing to do is both impractical and dangerous, like helping a persecuted minority escape from a genocidal regime.

So you are saying it requires belief in God to act unselfishly.  And CL Kudosed this.
Good to know.

(January 23, 2017 at 3:31 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

Neo-Scholastic Wrote:Of course atheists can be good without god, but they cannot logically claim to be good without referencing some transcendent source of the good.

That's some ludicrously obvious bullshit right there.

He's  right though. On what basis do we claim that a particular act is objectively good? Why is it good to help people and bad to hurt people? 

I've heard it said that I help other people for the good of our species because it comes back to me and helps keep me alive. Because we each evolved to stay alive by helping out in our communities. 

But at some point in the future we will get to a place where we are so over populated, that it will be to our personal benefit for other people (unless they are particularly important) to die, not for them to live. Do we eventually evolve to think that hurting people is good and helping them is bad?

(January 23, 2017 at 3:08 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(January 23, 2017 at 2:46 pm)Cephus Wrote: Because those are all subjective questions. 

If they are, are you living your life consistent with the logical conclusions of that opinion? Seems to me that a lot of AF members have rejected Christianity yet still try to justify their belief that human equality and personal autonomy are valid secular moral principles. Of course atheists can be good without god, but they cannot logically claim to be good without referencing some transcendent source of the good.

That's totally irrelevant.  I pointed out to you why one question is valid and the other is not and you're ignoring that and trying to end-run around it. Gods have not been demonstrated to be objectively real.  Period.  Desperately trying to spin your way out of that reality is ridiculous.  But then again, you have an imaginary friend, I suppose we can't be too surprised.

(January 23, 2017 at 3:32 pm)Aroura Wrote:

(January 23, 2017 at 3:08 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: If they are, are you living your life consistent with the logical conclusions of that opinion? Seems to me that a lot of AF members have rejected Christianity yet still try to justify their belief that human equality and personal autonomy are valid secular moral principles. Of course atheists can be good without god, but they cannot logically claim to be good without referencing some transcendent source of the good.

Why are they not valid if humans get to make the rules (because they are subjective)?  Why can we not decide to be good?

---

(January 23, 2017 at 3:19 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Sometimes the right thing to do is both impractical and dangerous, like helping a persecuted minority escape from a genocidal regime.

So you are saying it requires belief in God to act unselfishly.  And CL Kudosed this.
Good to know.

He actually said the opposite of that.

(January 23, 2017 at 3:15 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: Practicality would be one reason. Self interest.

You have to remember that the core of all morality is enlightened self-interest.